Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrested Development running jokes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Arrested Development running jokes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is not encyclopedic and stands very little chance of ever being so. It seems to be simply a list of jokes that have been made more than once in "Arrested Development." With articles for every episode, this list seems redundant. SaveThePoint (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Definitely not encyclopedic. See what Wikipedia is not. More subjectively, this list is way too specific to be appropriate. "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the 'list of shades of colours of apple sauce', be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." Tanthalas39 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Arrested Development (TV series) Doc Strange (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki if an appropriate home for this content can be found, otherwise delete. This is an incredibly discriminate list, the subject of which is likely to have received no third party attention. Not the sort of content for Wikipedia. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki - I second NickPenguin's remarks. This has to go-- Cailil   talk 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete even though ILIKEIT, this is not fit for Wikipedia. No need to transwiki or merge or anything, there's more content at the Balboa Observer-Picayune than this list will ever have. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a new home for it -  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Closedmouth. Didn't even know about that site... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Closedmouth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - sounds like a case for TV Wiki --Badger Drink (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire. A canonical example of fancruft.  Great for fans, impossibly POV and trivial for an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - unencyclopedic. Addhoc (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete someone should go create an Arrested Development wiki for this crud. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete : article fails to assert notability per WP:N and is likely the work of original research in violation of WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Wikipedia book and movie entries have sections on recurring themes. Why not Arrested Development? Wikipedia is meant to spread knowledge, and this entry definitely does that to viewers who don't catch the humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.103.59 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Closedmouth (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT this article is great for true fans of the show because the show is founded on running jokes. The show constantly has references to jokes made in prior episodes. It is great that there is a way to chronicle and reference these jokes. Keep the article. BeniWins (talk) 27 December 2007 — BeniWins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Response to the last two "keep" votes: Wikipidia is not about everything. Specifically, "Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. This is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming unmaintainable. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every particle in the universe, every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. It is impossible to document everything, and that's why Wikipedia has established notability guidelines on what should be kept."Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.