Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is black and white and red all over?


 * 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-27 05:55Z 

What is black and white and red all over?

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Failed both speedy and prod - just one cliched joke of thousands. If I had to cite a particular guideline for deletion, I guess it would be WP:BAI (WP:DUMB) or that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. I just don't believe this article has any potential to be anything more than a destination for people to add their own interpretations of the joke. As the nominator, I change my vote to keep based on the new title and references by Uncle G. RJASE1 Talk  02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete  (right now): Leaning merge with another article, which one? I am not sure, perhaps something like this only merits a line in some other entry.A mcmurray 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The new title and the relevance raised by Uncle G.A mcmurray 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a joke book. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorporate into something else, it's part of our culture, it's a really old joke, belongs some where on Wikipedia. --The_stuart 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps incorporate into Why did the chicken cross the road? Just an idea. RJASE1 Talk  02:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a joke book, and the joke is so old that is it not worth moving to WP:BJAODN. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete [revoked] This is an extremely old age joke question that i would support keeping if it had something about its history etc. But I doupt anyone is going to find the required info. other punch lines section is rather... crude.--Dacium 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Brace yourself for a surprise. Uncle G 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP After Uncle G's changes--Dacium 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete How you can source something like this? -- † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I would suggest moving it to an article such as "List of cliched jokes" except there'd be POV/sourcing problems there, too. Just get rid of it. JuJube 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How can one source something like this? In the way that the article is now sourced.  There is almost certainly no need even for a merger.  Yes, as exemplified by, a collection of jokes does not make an encyclopaedia article.  The cure for that is to take the serious documentation and discussion of the jokes concerned (which doesn't exist for aviation jokes), and cleanup the article.  As with , this riddle has been studied in detail by both linguists and folklorists, and there is plenty to say on the subject.  Keep. Uncle G 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like the article has been moved to the title Newspaper riddle by Uncle G. Hopefully this doesn't confuse the discussion too much. RJASE1 Talk  20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Uncle G has done it again. Nice job. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * but that title is a plot spoiler (smile)DGG 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Chiaro points out that in translation to French one has to include exactly such a spoiler, specifing a newspaper in the question. Uncle G 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep under new title - nice turnaround! bd2412  T 12:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - excellent contrast between the before AfD and the current version's level of notability. If only all AfD's encouraged such positive editing rather than arguing. - WeniWidiWiki 17:40, 24 February 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.