Deletion of Science humour

Comment: Original research, and I don't believe Snopes to be a |RS anyways
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This is a list of jokes and although I chortled at many of the items, such as the Heisenberg one, and although many of the entries are familiar to science students of the past several decades, and although it is useful to teachers of introductory science, it is a list, and the text is an essay, and, sadly, it does not appear to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Wikipedia is not |a list of jokes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: There are zillions of jokes. I highly doubt that explaining each and other of them is a way for writing encycopedia. All wikipedia rules apply. Firtst, trivial as it may seem, unreferenced explanations are just what they are: |unreferenced, possibly |original research. Second, there are jokes and jokes. Some of them deeply penetrated the culture, spawned a number of imitations and/or have aninteresting history. In this case ee can have separate artice for a '''single''' joke, just as we have separate aricles for single slang words or witticisms. But again, references for '''academic discussion of the topic''', please
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE||WP:NOR)