Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jolly Rancher Story


 * 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. enWiki is not here to document the latest urban legend, particularly given WP:NOR. alpha Chimp (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jolly Rancher Story
This is a non-notable urban myth. There is one Google hit for the subject, and it does nothing to make this myth notable in the encyclopedic sense. Deprodded by creator with no changes to the article because he claims to want to document the story's subculture. Unless appropriate sources exist, that would be original research. Erechtheus 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Strong delete - It's a disgusting story, and almost certainly a made up hoax. It fails on several counts, including notability and original research.
 * Delete and may I say, ewwwwwwww. The article does not cite any sources, I've never heard of this before, and with only one google hit I can't see the purpose of Wikipedia spreading rumors. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I will also say ew. Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --72.75.117.73 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This story is true, not something made up. Futer 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you verify that with an independent source? Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes Futer 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment By all means, do so by citing it in the article. Erechtheus 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment Ok then Futer 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per verifiability policy. No sources given. The issue is, of course, not whether the story is true, but whether there are sources attesting to the story's being important because of being well-known and widely disseminated. (Disseminated? Do I really want to use a word like that in this context?) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This legend is as valid as any other and while the victim wishes to remain anonymous, a first-hand account does exist. If anything this story carries more validity than any other urban legend, or suburban legend, because it is known to be true. As far as its importance to culture and Wikipedia, it merely serves to spread knowledge and keep the story straight, just as any current written record of mythology does. jic26
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not the place for this story to establish any legacy. This project relies on appropriate secondary sources and bans original research. Take it to Snopes if they'll have you. Note that jic26's only edits have come on this AfD. Erechtheus 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to point out that this is basically the same as The Aristocrats joke, except that it's better known because of the movie by the same title. If this sourcing issue had been around before the movie came out, there would be a bunch of people on this site who would find it irrelevent and frivolous.  By having it deleted, we are stifling free speech and possibly stopping another Aristocrats from coming into being.  The fact is, there is an oral tradition that exists and is constantly propagating.  The unfortunate side effect of an oral tradition is that it doesn't strictly conform to sourcing. tarzanman21
 * Comment. If it doesn't conform to sourcing, then this is not the place for it. Erechtheus 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article says "The telling of the story has become an artform for those who know it, much like the Aristocrats joke." tarzanman21 says "I would like to point out that this is basically the same as The Aristocrats joke, except that it's better known because of the movie by the same title." Exactly right. That's precisely why this article should be deleted. We need an article about The Aristocrats joke because of the movie about it. When someone releases a documentary featuring a dozen different comics each telling "The Jolly Rancher Story," we should have an article about it. Even if there is no movie about it, if someone has a verifiable source saying that this story is well known and the telling of it has become an art form among professional comedians, we should have an article about it. If it's just another dirty story, we shouldn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with a single google hit on a website forum there is a huge issue of WP:V. As far as I'm concerned, if the snopes] crew hasn't taken it on (or any other myth busting people) it isn't a notable urban myth. Mitaphane talk 02:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the reliable source code for wikipedia must be updated for cases of urban legend. When it comes down to it, there is no "reliable" information out there that can confirm an urban legends "urban" status.  By its very nature, urban legends are spread by word of mouth.  Therefore, blogs, discussion board posts and the like should be considered an acceptable source.[tarzanman21]
 * The other alternative is that Wikipedia is not the place for listing urban myths that have not been documented by appropriate secondary sources. Wikipedia never claimed to be the place for urban myths. I have struck your "keep" under this bullet because you have expressed your "keep" opinion above. Erechtheus 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ""Keep"" What does that matter if as that warning at the top of the page states, it isn't a vote??? I'm just categorizing my response for the benefit of the readers of this debate. tarzanman21
 * While this isn't a vote, it is still only appropriate for you to issue your opinion once for consideration by the closing admin.Erechtheus 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. You can't verify the story even happened much less the particular details. Though I will say the line "After some hot n' heavy foreplay that lasted for a good 15 minutes..." got a laugh out of the wife reading over the shoulder. Apparently that is a "typical male assumption" of a good length of foreplay. Personally, I thought he was holding out. :p 205.157.110.11 10:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if the story were not true, it would still be a common myth/urban legend among college and high school students. Although the story has not grown enough to be nationally or even universally recognized, a great deal of people do know this story. A third party source may not exist as of yet, but the story still remains in circulation. Too keep it on wikipedia would allow for a more recognition of the story and spread its information. To delete it because of a lack of sources seems hippocritical to wikipedia's main goal of being an encyclopedia and allowing people to share and add articles. If sourcing was that vital to the wikipedia project, then every single sentence in all 1,383,000 articles would have to have a source and also be verified. Why even bother writing articles on wikipedia if we could just list hotlinked sources for each topic? If this article is deleted you are witholding information, sourceable or not, and this seems to be the polar opposite of what wikipedia is all about. bfkiesel
 * If something isn't notable enough right now, and needs Wikipedia to make it notable, then it's not fit to be on Wikipedia. By your logic, absolutely anything could be put on Wikipedia because it being on Wikipedia would make it notable. Delete. --hello,gadr e n 22:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, no notablity, and no reason to keep. Arbusto 02:08, 22 September 2006 (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.