Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye

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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring jokes in Private Eye

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is WP:MADEUP, no sources actually talk about the subject of “reoccurring in jokes”, as a discrete thing, in detail, and I have no idea what alternative terminology could possibly describe this. Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Lists, and United Kingdom. Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept of the recurring jokes in the magazine meets WP:GNG, a list of the jokes meets WP:NLIST. See:
1. The Guardian [1]
2. WSJ [2]
3. The National[3]
4. The Age [4]
5. Even Reuters has a bit about them [5].

Article needs some love, but AFD is not cleanup. —siro χ o 08:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is clearly relevant, but do the others really talk about running gags in the paper vs. just the paper? Plus the Age link is broken. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. WSJ: "a baffling shorthand of catchphrases and in-jokes". The National: "The jokes were always there, such as nicknaming HM the Queen as Brenda, while the purported thoughts of Prince Charles – Brian – are a regular feature. Their name calling has been a regular petty feature – Andrew Neil as Brillo, Piers Morgan as Piers Moron and Richard Branson as Beardie spring to mind." The Age: "You have to be in on the in-jokes". Reuters: "Newcomers to the magazine may be baffled by its in-jokes ..." GrindtXX (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the above reasons. The Eye is well known for its in-jokes, some of which have progressed into general circulation (e.g. Tired and emotional, which now appears in the OED), others of which are impenetrable to anyone other than regular readers, and which merit encyclopedic unravelling. GrindtXX (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not willing to entertain a nomination which came about to spite someone in an unrelated argument. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not! You’re assuming bad faith and making an ad hominem attack. I sincerely hope the closer ignores you irregardless of outcome. Dronebogus (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Rhododendrites wrote seems perfectly reasonable to me. Whether you did it to spite someone is arguable, but it certainly seems so if one goes to the link and reads what you said in an unrelated discussion. Anyway, keep. Athel cb (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ive struck the linked comm since people seem to be misinterpreting it in a poor light. Dronebogus (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to assume. You were explicit about it. Striking it doesn't undo your bad faith edits -- it just tries to pretend otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article subject is not "made up", it was originally split from the parent article due to the latter's length. The terminology used in Private Eye, per Siroxo's sources, is part of what makes the magasine an institution, and much of it has entered common parlance. Some of the more trivial examples could surely go, but they are not an argument to delete the whole article. Jdcooper (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Rhododendrites. This is very likely to have been opened in bad faith, and I would support sanctions against Dronebogus for pulling this stunt. XfD is not a weapon and should not be used as such. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep makes sense. Even if this was nommed in good faith it has a serious component of looking as if it wasn't. Best to let it slide for six months or so. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see why this was nominated. Almost all conceivable articles named "Recurring jokes in X" would be deletable. This is a rare, genuine exception but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise given how much of the article is unreferenced and seems like enthusiastic fan writing. Extensive cleanup is required. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge. The article doesn't contain sources indicating significant coverage in reliable sources exists for recurring jokes in Private Eye as a group; this discussion has turned up precisely one such source and I haven't been able to find any more myself. The bulk of the sources are discussions of the magazine as a whole which mention recurring jokes only in passing (GrindtXX provides an indicative list of trivial mentions, which contribute absolutely nothing to notability). This is a !vote to merge rather than delete because this article is much better-sourced than Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye), and the main article doesn't mention a few better-known jokes. (The procedural issue is probably moot now, and it's mostly semantics anyway, but it's probably worth noting that none of the WP:PROCEDURAL circumstances pertain and that what "procedural keep" !voters seem to want is a speedy keep per criterion 2.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (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.