Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gag

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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running gag

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

Very short dicdef, tagged for maintenance for over two years with nothing happening. Doesn't seem like it can be expanded beyond dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not "very short". Not a "dicdef". "Doesn't seem like it can be expanded" - it sure has been expanded in both the German and the French articles. Has a good reference and many more can be found. Ok, somebody tagged itfor maintenance, but the tagger(s) didnt care to explain concerns on talk page. Tagged for maintenance is a poor reason for deletion. MrCleanOut (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nb the French article is a redirect to Comique, where running gags get a couple of sentences. pablo 11:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those improvement tags seem somewhat out of date, appropriate though they may have been for this version. Most articles could do with attention from an expert, so it's hard to argue with {{Expert-subject}}, but I don't think it's needed here any longer; the article seems coherent. I don't think that there's any problem with the context either. Anybody else have any ideas? pablo 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a "dicdef" (Wiki-Jargon for dictionary definition). There is a problem with calling it a literary device, since it was widely used on radio and television shows early in their development, and still is in some cases. See Jack Benny or Fred Allen for many examples. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many literary devices apply equally to other modes of storytelling; there may be a better term, but don't take it too ... literarily pablo 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 19:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is neither "very short" nor a simple dictionary definition. Tags appear mostly out of date--appropriate for when they were added but just not removed as the article was improved. Article is parent for Category:Running gags. Could the article be expanded? Sure, but that's a matter for tagging, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its long enough to have its own article, it just a short dictionary definition. Article has been around since 25 June 2003. If for the final two of those years someone had a tag on it, I don't see that as a reason to delete it. Almost no one pays attention to the pointless tags people spam all over the place anyway. Dream Focus 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's getting there. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable literary term, I would rather it have some examples drawn from reliable, notable sources, it does not work with no examples at all. Redhanker (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the subpage under the article talk page for TV examples. Radio show examples are in Jack Benny and Fred Allen. Literary examples are not so easily found, at least by me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or delete -- still merely a WP:DICTDEF. Needs material on why a running gag (why is it used? why is it funny?) not just what one is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm sure it can be expanded beyond dicdef. If it has issues, I don't think AFD is the place for them Purple backpack89 23:01, 24 January 2011 (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.