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. I didn't find the keep arguments sufficiently persuasive. Keep if referenced is not a good argument, when you are not providing the references. A search through google does not yield anything which can be taken as a serious academic or reliable source. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bektashi jokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a joke book, and this article does not cover encyclopedic material. The article does not cite its sources and is basically a list of off-color jokes. Agha Nader 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per WP:BJAODN.--Edtropolis 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep We have a whole huge category:humor. Humor is an importnat element of human culture and various prominent national humor topics , such as Nasreddin are fairly encyclopedic and easily referencible. And the statement "basically a list of off-color jokes" is just plain false; the nominator seems failed to read the article. `'юзырь:mikka 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wiki:Humor is not a collection of jokes either. Just because a group/culture is joked about doesnt mean wikipedia should have a list of those jokes Corpx 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per юзырь, this article is not written as a jokes list. The article describes a specific social and cultural function Bektashi jokes play in certain Islamic societies. The two jokes (usefully) illustrate the encyclopedic points, but they're not the main thrust of the article. As long as the content is correct (already tagged as needing citations), the article is encyclopedic. Zenauberon 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems a little too much like original research to me, but if references can be provided, Weak keep. Clarityfiend 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, refs req'd, or may fail as OR. Zenauberon 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if referenced. If this is an important subjecy, it shouldn't be hard. The article isnt a list, it talks about cultural parallels and signif. What it needs is references to some book with more of them. DGG 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article contains a lot of original research. The article states: "The following example illustrates how the Heterodox understanding of Islam by Bektashis is expressed in these jokes:" While it tries to give significance to the "examples", it is entirely based on OR. Another case of OR is "The legacy of the Bektashi also serves as a means of opposing the pressures put on society by Orthodox Islam." If you remove the original research from the article, then it will indeed be an article that is just a list of jokes.--Agha Nader 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reading the article, I agree with mikkalai and others. This is an article about humor in culture different from yours or mine, not a "joke book". No, Wikipedia is not a place for an expanding collection of jokes for editors to add to. However, that which one finds funny is as important a part of one's cultural background as anything else. Let's not start a trend where we need to nominate as an AfD Lightbulb joke or Knock-knock joke, which analyze those respective forms of mirth. Mandsford 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been no sources to prove the notability of Bektashi jokes. Just because a theme for a joke exists does not mean it ought to have its own article.--Agha Nader 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• of course keep It seems kids without a sense of humor get mad everytime they see a joke.--BMF81 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith--Agha Nader 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This article is about the fundamental role a sophisticated, ironic form of humor plays within a particular society. From a sociological perspective, this is quite interesting and certainly noteworthy. The article needs expansion but its basic premise is clearly encyclopedic. I don't see how anyone could characterize this a joke book.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Its basic premise" is based on original research that cites no references... how is that encyclopedic?--Agha Nader 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterizing it as a "joke book" when it obviously is not is difficult to understand. That it is not properly sourced does not make its content unencyclopedic. And it certainly is not in violation of WP:OR given the information in its external links. Obviously, it needs more scholarly references but that can be fixed and is not grounds in and of itself for deletion. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is in violation of WP:ATT. Are we to assume it is encyclopedic because the unreferenced original research sounds encyclopedic? There has been no proof that it is encyclopedic. Since you are making the affirmative statement (i.e. "its basic premise is clearly encyclopedic.") you have the burden of proof. Moreover, the external links are not references, they are websites that have these jokes.--Agha Nader 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the editor who originated this article is John Shindeldecker, none of this is OR. The content appears to be derived from the third external link, which really should be listed as a citation instead. (Under Section X, there is a series of jokes listed, along with interpretations that seem to match those adopted in the WP article.) A check of the organization hosting the ref'ed article suggests this is a secondary source with editorial control, not self-published, although I won't claim to know anything about the "Alevilik-Bektasilik Research Site." But a google search tells me that whoever this author is, the Canadian gov't considers him authoritative enough to cite on an official document. Zenauberon 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if referenced. Being a joke book doesnt matter, notability matters. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article discusses a cultural influence and model of humor. -- Bigwyrm 03:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.