Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of "You have two cows" jokes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of "You have two cows" jokes was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was a qualified Keep. By my count, there were 14 clear delete votes (primarily arguing that the topic is unencyclopedic), 28 keep votes (including several anon votes which get discounted) and 5 ambiguous votes. Most of the keep votes clearly expressed the sentiment that the content should be kept. A significant number of the voters both for and against suggested that this article might be more appropriate in Wikisource or Wikibooks.

After a review of the Wikibook mission and of the other "miscellaneous" books which they have created and are maintaining, I decided to m:transwiki this article to Wikibooks. I have already updated the link on the article's main page to point to the Wikibooks page. Because this is an actively edited page, I recommend waiting a brief period before deleting this remnant. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I am going to redirect the Wikipedia article to the Wikibooks page. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page has been listed on VfD in the past; see /archive

Original material, as evidenced by the disclaimer "Most jokes are Wikipedian originals". I suggest that this page should be moved to a subsection of BJAODN. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:20, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

  • I think an old version of this page that contained only existing material should be restored and all original jokes deleted. We clearly don't need original jokes on Wikipedia, but existing and widespread ones deserve inclusion in the form of such list. Keep. Paranoid 09:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and have a good laugh for once!
  • Weed out the jokes that are Wikipedian originals and leave the rest. Keep. This should have never been put on VfD. Andre (talk) 20:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Horrible. Just do something with it, don't leave it how it is now. I don't know that we even need such a list. You have two cows could probably cover the subject adequately. Everyking 22:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - if you can't laugh, what can you do?
  • Delete. Wikipedia Is Not A Joke Book. Psychonaut 23:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if people would have left the "canonical" list of two cows jokes alone, but this is ridiculous, and not in a ha-ha-funny kind of way. Weak delete. -Sean Curtin 03:02, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not encyclopedic in its current form. Trim drastically, possibly merge to You have two cows, move the current version to BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 12:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think it's rather similiar to list of "knock knock" jokes. - Mailer diablo 12:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not at all encyclopedic. --Improv 15:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, remove originals (or transiwki to source or books) —siroχo 21:26, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --Jondel 04:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD relist. And whoever suggested reducing it to just the "canonical" list... what are they? All jokes were original once. Kinitawowi 10:34, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Where's your sense of humour? Besides, I don't think most people will add to in once it's moved to BJAODN. --Andylkl 14:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I wonder: is an encyclopedia an appropriate place for people to invent jokes? Perhaps it could be moved to meta.wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 10:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be good to separate the canonical jokes from the user-added ones, but the original ones illustrate the new direction that the jokes are taking in terms of the topics they cover, and they show humorous perspectives on an issue from several different angles (see the numerous Libertarianism, Capitalism, Mathematics entries). --idont_havaname 17:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: Vote was struck out by original author. I'm not sure why. anthony 警告 17:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Including the originals. As User:idont_havaname pointed out, they are useful. **Above vote is by Suntiger 18:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Things that are just made up by Wikipedians aren't useful. This is an encyclopedia. Everyking 20:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge a few representative non-original jokes and delete (GFDL authorship isn't an issue as the page authors did not author the jokes). -- Cyrius|✎ 23:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove the originals, Wikipedia is not a place for original "research". No vote on whether to keep or merge the rest of the page. — David Remahl 02:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Wikipedia is not a joke book. Having a few examples is useful and necessary, but I'm now convinced that a long list is not. I liked this list when I first saw it (when it was still part of You have two cows.) The problem is that people can't restrain themselves from adding in their own jokes. I distinctly remember removing a Wikipedia self-reference from the list some while ago, and now there's not one but three entries for Wikipedia. Isomorphic 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Isn't it possible to protect the page against further editing? (Sorry, I'm a newcomer... please don't bite...) If so, just pare down the list to the original ones and freeze the page. Further, then merge to the first You Have Two Cows page, and perhaps have a link to some of the originals through some external link. Otherwise, keep. --Idont havaname 05:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. This definately does not belong in an encyclopedia. Frankly, I'm shocked at the number of keep votes. Wyllium 06:11, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Keep content- if deleted, transwiki somewhere or something like that. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was going to vote Delete, but read through the article.--Etaonish 19:45, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong DELETE, this does not belong here and should be trans-wiki'd somewhere more appropriate. GRider 22:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • keep-PlasmaDragon 22:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete from here, move to wikibooks. Just look into the page history. People keep pumping more and more "original research" into it. Who would have thought that there are more two-cow jokes than blondie jokes (in wikipedia)? Mikkalai 23:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I wrote the original canonical list back in 2001. There were various reasons for doing it (and it's related concepts, the light bulb jokes, etc) which was to promote the public awareness of the 'pedia. Larry Sanger agreed that there were a range of things which people might search for and this was one of them. Remember at this time we only had 10000 articles and virtually no web presence. Essentially we saw no problem with the pedia becoming a repository of 'all things known'.

To delete this article on the ground that it is "not an encyclopedia article" is absurd - it is a list document (of which there are hundreds in the 'pedia) which is a logical child of a genuine article. (Lists which exist in complete isolation are of questionable value, certainly). Deletion of this article logically implies a need to delete the lists of US presidents, Nobel Prize winners, etc. It is clearly not a source document, nor is it a book, so it doesn't fit with the other media areas. The original content should probably be excised, but determining which is original and which is lurking around on the web could be tiresome.

I'm fairly shocked with the rabid "it doesn't belong here" kind of comments as from Wyllium and GRider. Lighten up, lads.Manning 03:33, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, but the idea that this, a list of jokes that are mostly Wikipedian originals, may be kept while we are headed towards deletion of notable information about The Simpsons, a show watched by millions, well, that makes me feel almost a bit queasy. Everyking 04:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is not list of things, like presidents, winners, etc. It is a list of "mini-sources", so to say. Ant it does constitute a book. The fact that the jokes are bulleted doesn't make in differ much from other books of jokes. Mikkalai 04:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, this page is huge, so maybe I missed someone else saying this, but I think the answer is simple. You have two cows is a good article. There should be an external link from that article to a (the?) canonical list of the jokes, which must exist somewhere out there in usenet land and probably many more places -- let's choose a moderately stable link if we can. That will let us show the reader examples (the probable initial rationale for the list) without allowing it to become Wikipedia's soapbox. That's my thought, at least. Jwrosenzweig 04:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now. The page really needs to be moved to another wiki, it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wikisource and Wikibooks have been suggested. Until the debate resolves and the article is moved, it should be kept on Wikipedia. -FunnyMan 15:43, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny, but not encyclopedic, especially since a fine article that actually discusses the subject already exists at You have two cows. Original and not useful as a reference source. BJAODN or transwiki somewhere if anyone else will have it, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. —Triskaideka 00:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see the same deletion proposals popping up for other lists of jokes as well. What do you think about the suggestion to make a huge common Wikibook of all kinds of jokes, to shut this issue down for good? Mikkalai 01:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep! I really dont see what the problem is. This is not harming anybody and *fun* is not a thing we should be ashamed about. I dont defend the creation of articles just for fun (although i did it in the past, viz. the falling turtles on peoples heads), but this is an uncontested piece of internet culture and therefore encyclopaediac. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 09:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not transwiki -- Wikisource doesn't need this either. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a precedent. Consider the existence of other lists of jokes of a certain theme in wikipedia. --12.39.150.170 00:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep- if delete then do somthing with it whether trans-wiki (i prefer wikisource) or BJAODN. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 03:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Manning made an excellent point which I would like to second. αγδεε(τ) 04:34, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
  • Keep. I cannot believe that this is being VfD'd again. There is nothing wrong with this. It's as encyclopaedic as many other articles and lists that exist, and it has a real audience. Why is it that you always seem to want to just delete things? As if they do not matter? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. D. G. 04:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is also not a joke book. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Then list Lightbulb joke, Knock-knock joke and all the rest of them, and see how quickly you get shouted down. A list of Two Cows jokes is necessary because of the parent article. The parent article explicitly says that it can be (and has been) expanded to cover virtually any field. Sure, I concur that arbitrary jokes have no place; but something which has entered the web culture to this magnitude deserves its spot here. Kinitawowi 10:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's of dubious encyclopedic value, but I don't see anything inherently unencyclopedic about it either. Either way, I don't see why this should be deleted. It's not adding much to Wikipedia, but it's not detracting from it either. Johnleemk | Talk 08:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Waerth 11:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Cut out the original research (or move to BJAODN if someone wants it kept). Cut out the copyright violations. If anything is left, keep or merge (or rename to something a bit more encyclopedic, like "Two cows jokes"). Otherwise, leave as redirect (because there are likely a number of incoming links to this page). anthony 警告 17:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete original and POV material, I don't see why this page should be an exception. Dori | Talk 01:37, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't list anything funny, therefore the content cannot be true to the word "jokes" in the title. CheeseDreams 03:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Remember that different people find different types of jokes funny. Clearly, quite a few people who have commented on this page think that the jokes on the List of You Have Two Cows jokes page are funny. --Idont Havaname 18:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or moove back to You have two cows, where it was originally. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 18:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've been wondering where to find these jokes for ages, and as always, Wikipedia came through for me. TomPhil 23:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having heard of but never been exposed to 2-cows jokes, I found the You have two cows article lacking in examples of said humor. I found this list to be both a humorous and gratifying source of supplimental reading having not required me to leave the site in search of (possibly) obscure sources listing similar content. Call me lazy, but I feel this list has served Wikipedia's raison d'être: to provide infromation. --AnonymousCaller 12:00, 27 Nov 2004 (PST)
  • Keep 20:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It's harmless. Is space limited? Who says wikipedia isn't a joke book? It can be anyting and everything. Don't be an ant man because ant people have very low horizons (Forrest Gump attr.) Matt Stan 21:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • We have Wikibooks for books. Still, this is a keep, as it is necessary to illustrate an archtypical joke format. Possibly consider merging with You have two cows? This seems like seperating a formula from its article. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep Come on folks, It's good enough to stay :) --Bestrest 16:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hesitate to ban something as uncanonical when there is no canon. I also suspect that this list is being circulated, and that many of these jokes will become better known and "canonical," making this a self-encyclopedicizing article. I don't mean to belittle the objections to the article, by the way. The issue is clear and I will not think any violence has been done to Wikipedia if a majority vote to delete. John FitzGerald 19:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_%22You_have_two_cows%22_jokes&oldid=1104606722"