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 redirect to List of Batman Family enemies#Mobsters and plainclothes criminals. There's consensus that there's not enough in terms of sourcing for a standalone article. It's up to editors to decide whether and what to merge from the history into the target list. Sandstein 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Gordon Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The usual fictional character biography with references limited to primary sources. No hint of any impact, reception, influences, etc. Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are reliable secondary sources out there, and they even seem to pass the ongoing test! Here's a few: [[1]]; [[2]]; [[3]]. News sites like these have been used as reliable sources for some time. And that was just a quick Google. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick look at google produces, as usual, low quality sources. Please tell me how any of those are reliable? Comic fandom is huge and of course there are going to be some hits, like the ones you found - reviews of the books he appears is, fictional character biographies by fans, etc. I don't think this is sufficient for NFICTION. Let me present a brief analysis of three sources:
    • Bleeding Cool may be reliable, but the three paragraph like wikia-style fictional character biography summary hardly seems like in-depth coverage. In fact, this may be the case of WP:CITOGENESIS as the content of this blurb for the readers (this old character returns in new series) is likely copied either from us or from the batman wikia. There's no analysis of the character, his significance, just a few sentences about who he is.
    • Comic Book Resources exactly the same issue as above.
    • Newsarama is a reliable outlet, with few paragraphs about why Ales Kot decided to include him in an issue (or few) of his series. That's actually is a decent source, even if it skirts WP:INTERVIEW.
  • I don't think that should be sufficient for calling a fictional character notable. Sorry, but this kind of niche fancruft belongs on Batman wikia, not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a pretty awful AfD nomination. Egregious violation of WP:BEFORE. Took a look at the AfD nominee's edit activity. PRODed one article [4] at 14:14. Then four minutes later took this article to AfD at 14:18, confidently stating "No hint of any impact, reception, influences, etc.". Again, four minutes later, took yet another article WP: Articles for deletion/Matsuya (department store) to AfD at 14:22, which was rather quickly thrown out as an absolutely baseless crappy nomination. Same with this one. Should be thrown out. Did nominee test any of the fancy links his automated script offers, as a matter of routine WP:BEFORE. Try for instance GScholar. I myself was pretty surprised that Google Scholar [5] offers peer reviewed articles on a figure from the Batman universe, for instance from International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior [6]. Holy cow. There are many more. What a lousy nomination. I'm glad I left Wikipedia years ago. Too many frustrations. MrCleanOut (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent quite a while looking for sources, and I didn't find any in-depth coverage in quality sources. Academic works, of course, would be great, but you are guilty of what you accuse me of, that is, insufficient analysis, or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I did look at [7], and if you did, you'd realize that the source mentions the subject in passing. Here', have the full quotes: "Notably, she gives birth to a son, James Jr., and not a daughter as in previous depictions of Commissioner Gordon." and " Indeed: When challenged by Two Face to identify “the person you need most”, Gordon chooses his son, James Jr. " That's it. He is mentioned in passing in two sentences. Yes, Batman has been researched quite a lot in academic literature, and to a lesser extent, Commissar Gordon too. But notability is not inherited, and his super niche family member, unknown to all but the biggest Batman fans, is not notable, and the lack of academic analysis of this character is quite obvious once you actually try to read the sources instead of relying on 'google hits'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies for yelling at you. I was tired, and you're completely right. I'm not at all Batman savvy and confused James Gordon Jr. with his father, James Gordon. I still inclined at keep, though. Junior also pops up in very serious scholarly work. Perhaps I can find some time tomorrow. MrCleanOut (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MrCleanOut: It's all good. I'd be happy if we can find sufficient sources for keeping, through I doubt books/scholar will help here. Maybe we can find sufficient stuff like Newsarama one above which actually go into something besides fictional character biography/powers (which can be possibly copied from Wikipedia itself leading to WP:CITOGENESIS). It doesn't help that 99% of stuff that comes up in search is for his much more famous father. Jr is not that well known, hence my point he is unlikely to be notable. But I guess we can always merge him up to his father article, where as section on his family can include info on Jr. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Piotrus:Restating my KEEP. - I cant help suspect that much of your deletion rationale, although unstated, hinges on WP:CRUFT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, there is a considerable scholarly interest in the Batman universe. The character James Gordon Jr. appears in quite diverse reputable journals behind paywalls (not predatory open access) such as

• John Porterfield (2009) A Review of The Dark Knight, A Rorschach of the American Psyche, Psychological Perspectives, 52:2, 271-275, DOI: 10.1080/0033292090288128
• Timothy D Peters (2015) Beyond the limits of the law: a Christological reading of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, Griffith Law Review, 24:3, 418-445, DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2015.1096985
• Gabriel Huddleston (2016) A Dark Knight for public education: Using Batman as an apparatus of diffraction with neoliberal education reform, Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 38:5, 468-489, DOI: 10.1080/10714413.2016.1221713

I found those sources, using "Dark Knight" as search term. I readily admit the mention of Junior is only passing. But, really, what is to be expected for this character, the son of another Batman fictional character, who, at times, interact with the Batman superhero himself. Passing mention in these journals is a VERY high bar to pass. If passing mention in such journals were required for stand-alone WP articles, the WP project would have its number of articles reduced by orders of magnitude.

There is good coverage of James Gordon Junior here: Thigpen AF (2007). Batman as Monomyth [..] the Hero’s Journey to Gotham. MA thesis

See text pp63-65, which examines Junior's importance for the psychological plot. In the story, Dick faces a supervillain that symbolizes Dick’s opposite: the psychopathic James Gordon, Jr. While Dick is empathetic and emotionally healthy, James, Jr. completely lacks empathy […] James, Jr., a clinically diagnosed psychopath, who wants to destroy Dick Grayson. Junior believes that “Gotham City is a city of nightmares... […] ... James, Jr. embodies what Vogler calls, “the archetype of the Shadow” [etc.]

While this of course not is the kind of scholarly work that is published in reputable scientific journals with double-blind peer review, it undermines your claim that he is a "super niche family member, unknown to all but the biggest Batman fans", i.e. the obvious conclusion is that this is not WP:CRUFT.

Content deletion is therefore not the right course of action here. The essential WP question is then if a stand-alone article is warranted or if content should be merged into the James Gordon (comics) article (you also suggest this). I would argue against, as it would make that article even more messy than it already is. I might also frustrate people there and drive good editors away from that project. That's why I stand by my Keep. The surprisingly (to me at least) broad scholarly interest in the fictional Batman universe may warrant a generalization of this position for all the Batman characters.

Taking a step back, we should ask ourselves about the extent to which the efforts put into this AfD actually improves Wikipedia. I have spent far more time on this immensely silly subject than I really like to admit – time I could have spent providing content or doing far more rewarding stuff in real life. Same situation for you, I presume. What an incredible waste of time. I was bored one evening and it was a most regrettable mistake of mine to open the AfD pages. I will now resume my Wikipedia hibernation. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We do need some in-depth coverage, but more sources for review are appreciated, I will try to look at them if we have time. If we can save this article, great. And if not, I do believe that keeping spam/fancruft of this project has merits on its own. Some levels of quality have to be maintained. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC) PS. I did look at the MT, but the discussion of Jr. does not go beyond the few sentences you quote. I think you really quoted 100% of what the author says about him. It is a good and reliable analysis, but I don't think three or so sentences in a single master thesis are sufficient to argue the subject received significant and in-depth analysis, and this is a treshold you'll notice in NFICTION and GNG in general. At the same time, I strongly encourage you to add this source with a sentence of two to the article; even if this ends up in merger, this will give us a reliable source to merge, besides unreferenced and mostly unimportant (batman wikia does it better...) stuff on character history and powers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The above sources don't seem to be enough to hold the character on its own. They'd be better served added to articles about whatever storylines in which they're relevant. TTN (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a purely personal opinion, not supported in WP:GNG. There is serious academic interest in the fictional Batman universe. That fact that the peer-reviewed papers I mention above in the highly diverse journals "Psychological Perspectives", "Griffith Law Review" and "Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies" bother to mention a plot with this character, James Jr. is a clear indicator of notability. The coverage in the Masters thesis is independent and significant, it addresses the topic directly and in detail, and it demonstrates that article content is not WP:OR. These WP:RS are merely what I found for this AfD. It's credible that others exist. Note that WP:GNG does not require definitive proof, only that it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found.

Your suggestion to move content "to articles about whatever storylines in which they're relevant" is completely bogus as no such article is likely to meet WP:GNG. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's like two things in the above that qualify as proper real world information. That in itself is not enough to build an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTN (talk • contribs) 00:43, September 21, 2019 (UTC)

Dear MrCleanOut, you still have to show us that the articles you've found contain any in-depth discussion. I did not have the time to look at them outside of the MT you linked, but the first example you found was, as shown, a mention in passing. We cannot use google hits, even in scholar or books, as an argument. Mentions in passing are mentions in passing regardless of the type of the source. Now, did your read those academic articles and can you tell us whether the discussion of the subject in those texts is in-depth? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: You still have to show us that the articles you've found contain any in-depth discussion. Is this a straw? In my rationale above I clearly stated: I readily admit the mention of Junior is only passing. As per WP:SOURCES, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources of all. Passing mention in diverse academic work is a clear indication of notability.
• Yes, I did bother to download and read those articles that Google scholar located. If fact many more articles, as search results were diluted with hits for his more famous father. It was a quite laborious task, as Jr. is mentioned in various ways, James Jr. or "his son", so I actually had to quick-read the stuff. My search was limited. You yourself found the "Newsarama" source, which you say is WP:RS. I have no opinion on that, I didn't check it. Also, I stopped searching after finding one MA thesis - more may exist, who knows. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Batman Family adversaries#Mobsters and plainclothes criminals where there is already a writeup on the character - WP:FICTION says fictional characters must meet WP:GNG and this character has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - all the references in the article are to comic books, which are primary sources for the character (WP:PRIMARY) - Epinoia (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the guideline. WP:GNG states that notability is a property of a subject, not the current state of a Wikipedia article. Your WP:PRIMARY claim ignores the WP:RS sources provided in this AfD. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I didn't ignore the sources provided, but I didn't find them compelling or the sources reliable - do these sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? - while notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources is not there - the requirements of WP:GNG are quite clear and unambiguous and this article does not meet them - Epinoia (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You question if peer reviewed articles and a Master's thesis count as WP:RS? What seems quite clear and unambiguous here is that you consider the comics realm inferior, not worthy of inclusion, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MrCleanOut (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• - spinning absurd conclusions out of thin air - but you are free to believe whatever you like, even if it is completely, absolutely and profoundly wrong - Epinoia (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no prejudice towards draftification if MrCleanOut believes that the article has reliable sources. In it's current state it is totally lacking in reliable secondary sources. However, let it pass through AfC first rather than giving the benefit of the doubt._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment is not supported by any reference to policy or guideline, it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note that AfD is not a vote. Note also that AfD is not for article clean up. As per WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ATD is a Wikipedia POLICY, not merely a guideline. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, article revised. I have revised the article and added RS sources. Many arguments at the AfD are based on the present state and sourcing of the article. AfD is not for article clean up however. Per WP:GNG It is sufficient to provide credible evidence that significant coverage in independent sources exist, which I have done. I don't have to show or prove anything to anybody. In theory at least, if due process is followed. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You're putting too much weight onto trivial sources. Having one or two good sources and a bunch of trivial mentions does not allow for a proper article. Linking a source to a single word shows the source is something that does not actually focus on the topic enough to even be in the article. TTN (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You have nominated 1,500+ articles for deletion, mostly within the fictional universe. Your own article creation history is nil. With this edit history, it is unsurprising that you are unhappy with a stand-alone article. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You’re simply refusing to accept that other people may not share your low standard of acceptable sources. We can certainly agree to disagree, but claiming that anyone who disagrees with you simply dislikes the article is disingenuous. TTN (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything that MrCleanOut added recently to List of Batman Family enemies and redirect. If this is all MrCleanOut could find about this character through hard work, then this character seems rather trivial and should best be covered in a list of characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I did put effort into examining mention in peer reviewed academic work. I haven't looked for other more mundane sources. You seem to apply criteria that, if applied rigorously, would call for deletion of most of Wikipedia MrCleanOut (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2019 (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.