Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags in Seinfeld (2nd nomination)


 * 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. --Core desat 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Running gags in Seinfeld
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - no reliable sources on the topic. The notability of the show doesn't mean that every "running gag" from the show, or a list of those gags, is notable. Otto4711 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete It's not even trivia... it's... "bivia"?--victor falk 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletehave to be honest not even sure what to say about this. I've been trying to not use terms like fancruft, but really when faced with this what else could you call it. Ridernyc 05:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm just curious what sources you'd require in order to keep this article. There are multiple books about the show (,, ,  ,  , etc.) and I'm sure at least some of these gags have been the subject of critical analysis. Zagalejo ^  ^  ^  05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that is part of the problems with lists of this sort there is no way to really source the info hence the entire list become original research. Ridernyc 06:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I know I've read magazine articles that explicitly described some of these as recurring jokes (eg. Kramer's entrances, "Hello, Newman", etc). It's not hopelessly OR; indeed, with a little effort, I'm confident I could verify a good chunk of this page with third-party sources. (The first hit here would be a good start.) I'm mainly wondering how I would show that this passes the notability criteria. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that is a whole different can of worms.WP:FICT says that notability should be inherited from the main Seinfeld article, but it kind of contradicts itself after that. Also you quickly hit a point where you have to question how far a subject can inherit notability. I would make the case that this would inherit notability. I really do not question this articles notability, I think there other problems in it.Ridernyc 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So would you concede that this is a cleanup issue, and not a deletion issue? If the subject is notable, the current content of the article is irrelevant.Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the entry is unencyclopedic and crosses the line between things that should be on wikipedia and things that should not be on wikipedia.Ridernyc 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep while this list may have specifically uncitable objects, citations that provide notability can be easily brought over from the seinfeld page, etc. --Buridan 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per noteability. Majoreditor 01:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? What would you require to demonstrate notability? No one can provide a counter-argument to such vague statements. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nomination, lacking reliable sources about the subject. Yamaguchi先生 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It varies as to what can be considered a running gag, and is a matter of opinion, which in turn pages this page total original research. Dannycali 01:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete why does this article exist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ive got an idea, lets just keep nominating it until it gets deleted. Sigh, thats whats wrong with this AFD process. It exists because it is encyclopedic. And if you think the content is unverifiable or un-sourceable you really need to read WP:OR regarding Primary sources, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Viperix 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's been a real push to keep renominating this article. Why, it was nominated one entire time before, 16 months ago! And it closed no consensus! Let us bar ourselves from ever considering it again! By the way, the Five Pillars are not policy; they are an overview of policy. Pointing at them and saying "encyclopedic" really doesn't say a whole lot. Otto4711 21:18, 24 October 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.