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 merge to Auckland Open (darts) . MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Auckland Open (darts)[edit]

2016 Auckland Open (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sporting event with no in-depth coverage. One ref no longer mentions the event (although it appears to have once mentioned it) and the other is a bare listing of results. No notable competitors. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like there are identical articles for 2006 through the upcoming 2017 tournaments. I can't find much evidence these meet WP:SPORTSEVENT (which I think are the relevant notability criteria), unless these count as a final match determining champion of a top league? Perhaps someone with more familiarity with the topic could find sources indicating the tournaments are notable. If not, I'd support merging all the annual tournament pages to Auckland Open (darts). I'll notify WP:Darts of the AfD. Ajpolino (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local tournament with no notable participants and fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Support deleting articles for all years as per user Ajpolino. Ajf773 (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Page creator here. I'm obviously biased, so I won't vote. I've made pages for BDO Category D and WDF Category 3 tournaments for quite a while now, this includes Auckland Open, but I can see how the tournaments themselves may not be notable enough to deserve individual pages. I'd wish someone had told me to stop earlier though. Other pages that might also require deletion: Apatin Open, Iceland Open, Malta Open and possibly Turkish Open (Category 3 WDF, Category A BDO). Kaffe42 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Depending on what others think, I can see the usefulness of a World Darts Federation circuit results or similar, with these merged and redirected to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather Weak Keep | Very Weak Delete | Merge into Auckland Open (darts) - It appears that pages for the tournaments from 2006 to 2017 have been created. I think that, if there should be a afd discussion for this, it should be for all of the tournaments; it's no point having some articles on the same level of a topic but not others as per Unscintillating. If there is a afd discussion for all of the tournaments (minus this one) I will put further input there. J947 02:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is discussed at WP:BUNDLE (WP:MULTIAFD), which IMO gives two different reasons why this AfD should not be changed.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Auckland Open (darts) or Delete. No clear reason that each year needs a stand-alone article with all contestants. Montanabw^(talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's more local than national. DrStrauss talk 15:33, 15 January 2017 (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.

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 trainwreck. Between the canvassing from both sides, I see no way to reliably ascertain whether there is a consensus to do anything. WP:NPASR, but it seems to me that an RFC along the lines suggested by John Carter and Jclemens may well be the best way forward. T. Canens (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (character)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Joker (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Joker (character) is a redundant duplicate of Joker (comics) that does nothing beyond rehashing information already on the latter and listing links to other articles. The reason it was apparently created was due to a "lack of a base page" and because (according to a user on this discussion) it "can't ever be the one-stop upper article, because of its comics focus." However, Joker (comics) isn't different from any other character article, as it includes information regarding the general characterisation, other media interpretations, and alternative versions on that page. The only reason it branched off into Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker is because there was to much information to include in those sections alone. Joker (comics) even goes into detail about the various actors who have played the Joker and the other media appearances in the lead. Joker (comics) is the base page. The reason it is called "(comics)" is the same as numerous other comics character articles: WP:NCC regulations. However, there is cause for renaming Joker (comics), especially given the existence of articles like Joker (comic book). What there isn't cause for, however, is the existence of the current Joker (character) article.

The primary opponent of the deletion seems to be Curly Turkey. Turkey's arguments (seen here) state that Joker (comics) can't be the base article because of its focus on the comics. However, that's because the Joker is a comic book character. He was created by writers hired by DC Comics for DC Comics publications and all subsequent media, which are covered in the article, are adaptations. If you find any movie with the Joker in it, it will say some variation of "Based on the characters from DC Comics". This isn't different from how any other comic character article is written. It's standard to include all various other media (such as film or television adaptations) in their own respective sections in these types of articles.

Curly Turkey went on to claim that WikiProject Comics are just WP:OWNy fanboys and that apparently all other non-comic fictional character articles are written differently, pushing his P.O.V. that the vast majority of comic book character articles are wrong and that all character articles should be written in a specific way. First of all, his WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is wrong. Let's take a look at some notable character articles, shall we? Count Dracula and Francis Dolarhyde are both about the original novel characters, with the other media covered in their own sections. Darth Vader is primarily about the film character, despite a number of different interpretations and other media appearances over the years. Hal-9000 is primarily about the original novel version, despite the universally famed movie. And of course, with comics, Garfield (character), Batman, Wolverine (character), Kick-Ass (character), Superman, ETC, are all about the original comics characters, with other media interpretations also covered briefly in the lead and in their own sections. Joker (comics) is no different. Having Joker (character) exist is like saying that an article about a novel can't be the base article because of a film adaptation, and then creating a third article about the story itself. Of course, Curly Turkey continues to insist that he has the consensus, even though he admits that an entire WikiProject is apparently against him. DarkKnight2149 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Survey[edit]

Darknight2149, did not notify the page creator Dekimasu on their talk page of this AFD discussion till now (6:22 11th January 2017), but notified many other editors of this AFD on 8th January, which is canvassing, whether he agrees or doesn't agree in the ANI report. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I has been closed and appropriate action taken. Both CurleyTurkey's and Darkknight's canvassing have been addressed and dealt with by the closing admin; Drmies, and enacting editor; Softlavender. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That ANI is closed or open, I don't care; but this AFD is still running and not closed. It was necessary to mention that the article creator User:Dekimasu was not notified, while other editors were notified of this discussion. --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the page wasn't created by Darkwarriorblake or Emperor? Because that's certainly what I was led to believe. DarkKnight2149 01:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu created it as a redirect, and Darkwarriorblake overwrote the redirect with the beginnings of the current article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that explains it. DarkKnight2149 01:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think there's a major COI here if The Dark Knight is trying to delete an article about the Joker. HAHA. Anyways, looking at both articles and reviewing the arguments I think the character page is redundant and not needed. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Utterly superfluous and redundant. It's literally just a second article for the same character, it's not an alternative universe or a media adaptation, the "in other media" article exists for the stuff that is here.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Treker (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Delete it is needless repetition to have more than one article on the same character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Snuggums (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Comment I was neutrally invited to comment. I need to mention that not too long ago I was involved in what turned out to be highly contentious RfC with Curly Turkey, an editor I respect very much regardless of that one issue. I also know DarkKnight and Snuggums are similarly top-notch editors. (I'm unfamilar with Comatmebro and I'm sure he's a fine editor, too.) While I do have a thought on this, which I'll share depending on how this RfC progresses, I'd like to abstain for now to avoid any possibilities of hard feelings among my very good colleagues. I know...I'm a wimp! But I didn't want anyone to think I was simply ignoring the invitation.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tenebrae (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • I'll assume you really believe you were "nuetrally invited", Tenebrae, but you weren't. You were WP:CANVASSed, and the selection of those invited was highly biased. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I assumed good faith. I didn't check to see who else was invited and the invitation itself was worded neutrally. I think my response indicates I took it neutrally. If it helps, whenever I've invited other editors to participate in an RfC, I always use some objective criteria that I disclose: "the last 10 registered editors on the page"; "every editor for the last 30 days" (or 60 if editing has been sparse, etc.) I know I've included editors whom I knew would be against whatever position I was espousing, but that's the only fair way to do it. In any event, out of respect for you and the other initial editors, I refrained from offering an opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tenebrae: It seems that Curly Turkey will say anything to influence the discussion in his favour.

@Curly Turkey: Until you can actually prove such, you may want to stop saying that as if it's fact. Especially given that your childish outburst at WP:ANI is going nowhere. DarkKnight2149 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that if the consensus is to delete, this parge should be redirected to Joker (comics) as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The most famous fictional Joker is the one from the comic books, and this is a plausible search term for readers. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need for the redundancy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Delete and redirect to Joker (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Completely agree with statements made by Darkknight2149. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Darkknight2149 and others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Favre1fan93 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• NOTE 1: Darkknight2149 has WP:CANVASSed a large number of sympathetic editors. I have reported it. The very sudden appearance of a large number of "me toos" should be read in that light. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 2: Darkknight2149's original plan was to wait until Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joker (comics)/archive2‎ closed, and then move the article to Joker (character) after the wider community's eyes were off it, despite the fact that Joker (character) was created specifically to avoid having the base article be specifically about the character's appearances in comics (which is why the first FAC was archived). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE 3: I just mentioned Curly Turkey's disruptive behaviour above at WP:ANI. Got any more false accusations you want to shove in front of the discussion? DarkKnight2149 03:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, and there should be repercussions for Darkknight2149's WP:CANVASSing of so many sympathetic editors. I've reported it.
  The Joker (comics) article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics. Semantically, a character cannot be a subset of that characters appearances in medium X. A character's appearances are a subset of the character.
  When a character appears primarily in one medium, a "XXX (character)" article will inevitably be primarily about the character's appearances in that medium, per WP:WEIGHT. Per WP:WEIGHT, Joker has appeared prominently in numerous media (film, TV, animation) and is best known to the general public through these appearances—a film such as The Dark Knight grossed more than double the entire comic book industry for 2008.
  Chances are extremely high that anyone doing a search for "Joker (character)" will be doing so after watching, say, Sucicide Squad—most of these viewers have never read the comic books, which have been selling around 100000 copies per issue for years now.
  The solution is simple: the article that focuses on the appearances of the character in comics should be titled something like Joker in comics, while the base article about the character in general should be at Joker (character), so readers will find what they want without confusion.
  WP:COMICS has a long history of confusing characters with their comics appearances, and used to have this stuff baked into its MoS page, until the wider community overturned it here. This request is another attempt to overturn community consensus, and is highly disruptive. This has been an ongoing problem with WP:COMICS, and it needs to be put to an end. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder why Darkknight2149 couldn't be bothered to inform any of the following, who have all taken part in these discussions before:

((ping|AIRcorn|In ictu oculi|SMcCandlish|Nat Gertler|Diego Moya|Unreal7

Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: The false "canvassing" claim is being dealt with at WP:ANI. If you'd like, you could notify those people. I notified all of the Wiki projects, various people who edited the Joker articles or near them, some people who happened to be on my Watchlist, and some who were seen in other edit histories. In fact, it was Argento Surfer who left the link to the Wolverine discussion to begin with. You are free to notify people as well, as long as it doesn't violate WP:CANVASS (which I'm sure you haven't read).

"The Joker (comics) article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics." - Oh, here we go again. I addressed that in the multiple paragraphs above. I'd suggest reading them. DarkKnight2149 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more of your WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. We have a simple problem with a simple solution, but it's running face-first into the wall of your POV. The rest of the community is more concerned with serving the average reader than what your deep-seated feelings about this character are. This WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nonsense at WP:COMICS has to end sometime.

I screwed up the pings, so here we go again:

@Matticusmadness, Steel1943, Erachima, Nicknack009, BlisterD, and J Milburn:

@King of all fruit, NatGertler, Masem, Herostratu, Tahc, and Alpha Quadrant:

Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up again: @AIRcorn, In ictu oculi, SMcCandlish, Nat Gertler, Diego Moya, and Unreal7:@Herostratus: Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argh—@Aircorn:. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHO DARES SUMMON ME FROM MY ETERNAL SLEEP? (Seriously, don't know why I was pinged, I have no knowledge of or opinion on this matter.) Herostratus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think you understand how WP:IDONTHEARTHAT works. I addressed each one of your points at Talk:Joker (comics). It was you who ignored mine. You not liking what I have to say, and other editors disagreeing with you, is not WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'm pretty sure I've pointed that out before. And on your "Strong keep" comment, nothing you said wasn't already addressed and explained away in the deletion proposal above. Do you see the hypocrisy in accusing me of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT yet? DarkKnight2149 01:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You most definitely didn't address my points—just endless variations on the irrelevant "where exactly do you think the character came from?" You never addressed how titling the Joker (comics) article as Joker (character) will misdirect all those who come after watching one of the endless stream of movies the character appears in (just one of the many points I keep bringing up that you ignore). You also keep bringing up WP:NCC even after I showed you where it was overturned. You simply can't be reasoned with. This is a general encyclopaedia—we serve the needs of the general reader. WP:COMICS doesn't get to override that through a raise of hands. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was that WP:NCC was the reason that Joker (comics) was called "Joker (comics)" to begin with. The movies are covered in Joker (comics), briefly in the lead and then in the "In other media" section (as I pointed out above); I also addressed your point regarding the films at Talk:Joker (comics), and Joker (comics) can be renamed Joker (character) for the reasons mentioned above (which I know you still clearly haven't read). DarkKnight2149 02:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You "addressed" it by dismissing it. That's not what adults mean by "addressing" an issue. If the article is to be titled "character", it must cover the character—to which your absurd response is that the comics character is the character. Seriously, what rational objection do you have to an article about Joker'S appearances in comics being titled Joker in comics? That's as straightforward and unambiguous as it gets. What do you have against unambiguity? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"your absurd response is that the comics character is the character." - No, that's simply why the page was called "Joker (comics)" and why it primarily takes the perspective of the comic character. Same as Wolverine (character), Garfield (character) and literally every other fictional character article. And as I have stated numerous times, the page does cover other media as well (read the last paragraph of the lead, for Christ sakes!). The only reason Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker are separate articles is because there was too much information to include it all in the sections at Joker (comics), which I have once again stated more than once. Did somebody say WP:IDONTHEARTHAT? In regards to that last question, your mistake is assuming that you must be right and everyone who disagrees with you is an immature idiot, is WP:NOTHERE, or any of the other things you said at Talk:Joker (comics). DarkKnight2149 02:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, it'll keep being brought up. Now answer my question that I keep asking but you keep ignoring: what, concretely, is wrong with Joker in comics for an article about Joker's appearances in comics? No red herrings about an irrelevant, three-paragraph "in other media" subsection of a subsection, please. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how we title character articles, comics or otherwise. You should already know this. DarkKnight2149 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batman in film, Punisher in film, James Bond in film, Spider-Man in film, Fantastic Four in film, Middle-earth in film, Depictions of Gautama Buddha in film, The Beatles in film, Barack Obama in comics ... but of course, this isn't a "character" article we're talking about (that would be a general one called Joker (character), which already exists). We're talking about Joker's appearances in comics, which you want to move to Joker (character), confounding readers' expectations. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all about a character's appearances in the medium, not about a character themselves. DarkKnight2149 03:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Joker (comics) is about the character's appearance in comics, not about the character itself. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a closer look at that article, because it is about the character, not appearances of the character. DarkKnight2149 04:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Joker (comics), Redundant. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:SPLIT (which, ironically, should probably be merged). The Joker (comics) article, which is already sprawling, is entirely about the comic book version(s) of the character with passing mentions of the others, while the article under discussion here is about the character in general, and branches out with ((Main)) to the comic book character article where needed, then presents a whole lot more information, about the TV series and film versions, among others (some of which are also potential stand-alone articles). This is standard operating procedure when a multi-genre/multi-medium/multi-continuity fictional character article becomes long and unwieldy; we break it up into narrower presentations and connect them with a summary-style article. We do the same thing with franchises and works in them, TV series and their seasons and notable episodes, bands and their albums and singles, etc., etc.

  A similar approach should be taken with Batman and other such characters. It seems that in many cases we have what should be, e.g., Batman (comics) at Batman, covering nothing but the comics in any detail, but not written in WP:SUMMARY style and making it hard for people to find the articles on the TV, film, etc., versions of the character, which are often what they're looking for (especially with regard to subjects of major motion picture franchises – the average WP readers probably knows more about and wants to know more about the filmic Batman and Joker than the comics ones). The title Batman (with a redir from Batman (character) should go to a summary-style article on the character as a whole, split into concise sections that summarize and link with hatnotes to the main articles on the rather different Batman characters in various media/continuities. The approach taken at Joker (character) is a good model and much better serves our reader needs than WikiProject Comics's controlling behavior toward treating the comics version of a character as somehow automatically the WP:PRIMARY topic, then minimizing navigability to related non-comics articles. (I say that as someone with a collection of 15,000+ comics; I have nothing against the medium, only against WP:OWN/WP:VESTED tendencies of wikiprojects. I've started plenty of wikiprojects, too, and have nothing against them, just against wiki-territorialism.)
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Joker (character) doesn't cover anything that isn't already in Joker (comics). Joker (character) is a rehash. It doesn't add anything new, and Joker (comics) is already the base article. Perhaps your arguments would work better if Joker (character) added something, but it doesn't. And if it seems that Joker (comics) takes the perspective of comics more than the other media, that's because Joker is from the comics, just as Darth Vader is primarily a film character. Furthermore, if it seems like Joker (comics) only passively discusses the other media (which is a bit of an exagerration when you look at the size of Joker (comics)#In other media), that's because there's too much information to include in that article. I'm pretty sure there used to be more, but they had to split it into Joker in other media for a reason. The only job of Joker (comics)#In other media is to summarise the character's history in other media, as Joker in other media is what goes into further detail. Joker (comics) does accomplish this task and the lead mentions it as well. Joker (comics) is already the base article, and really isn't different from any other fictional character article. And this isn't just about the comics character articles, either. Count Dracula is primarily about the novel character, but also covers the films and everything in respective sections. I listed a number of other examples above. The WikiProjects aren't "owning" anything here. DarkKnight2149 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not asying anything more than that we have a poor article that needs to be improved. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have a duplicate article that needs to be removed. DarkKnight2149 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editors were explicit that they did not want to turn the Joker (comics) article into a general article on the character, which would be another solution. As the editors wish to limit the article to Joker's comics appearances, the title must reflect that, and the Joker (character) article was created to fill in the gap. The problems were solved, and now you want to unsolve them. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite. What editors? And don't bring up that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT rubbish, as if you've ever mentioned this before. I know this probably isn't going to lead anywhere, so I don't even know why I'm asking. DarkKnight2149 05:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of the Joker (comics) article. Darkwarriorblake—the article's primary editor and FAC nominator—said he wasn't interested in the non-comics aspects of the character and wanted to keep it focused on Joker's comics appearances. Which is fine—a Joker in comics article can ignore everything else, which was his intention for keeping it named Joker (comics) rather than Joker (character). For unrelated reasons, Joker (comics) because it implies "Joker IS-A comics", and thus can be confused with Joker (comic book), Joker (graphic novel), and Joker (comic strip). Joker in comics is a simple solution to this simple problem; a more involved solution would be to take Darkwarriorblake's article and rewrite it as a generalized article of the character, but nobody has volunteered to do so and Darkwarriorblake would like to see the comics-focused article achieve FA. I'd like to see him achieve that, too. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have proof of this, or are you just twisting what people say to fit your arguments (especially given that you're suspiciously just now mentioning this)? DarkKnight2149 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What an absolute mess. Curly and SMcCandlish have offered a good explanation with the problem with this discussion and, dare I say, possibly the problem with our coverage of comics characters in general. To those who are complaining about redundancy: Why would you suggest merging the article on the character into the article about the character's appearance in the comics? If there's a worry about redundancy, surely the merger should be going the other way. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Josh Milburn (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Note: I am a regular contributor to AfD, especially on AfD debates related to fiction, and have actively engaged with the related FAC discussion (where I had explicitly mentioned the possibility of this AfD before it was brought to my attention). I do hope that whoever has "expressed a concern" is ignored by any administrator reviewing this page. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"possibly the problem with our coverage of comics characters in general" - If you have a problem with how comics character articles are treated in general, you'll have to open up a much larger discussion rather than focusing on this one particular article.

I'm not sure if you read the many paragraphs I wrote above, but nothing in Joker (character) isn't already covered in Joker (comics). And as has been brought up, Joker (comics) is not only about his appearances in comics. The reason it takes the point of view of the comics is because the Joker is primarily a comics character and his subsequent appearances in other media are adaptations. Joker (comics) does go into detail about the other media, as well as the cultural impact, characterisation, and alternative versions. The only reason that Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker exist is because there's too much information to fit in those sections at Joker (comics) alone. Joker (character) just re-hashes Joker (comics) and doesn't offer anything new to the table, which is why it's redundant. And most fictional character articles already take the perspective of the source material/primary media version of the character to begin with, so there's nothing different about Joker (comics) being the base article (which it is). DarkKnight2149 03:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"you'll have to open up a much larger discussion"—you've already been shown these discussions. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and all that. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told before, nothing in those discussions supports the existence of the separate Joker (character) article. If anything, it supports having Joker (comics) renamed as "Joker (character)". It's not any different from having Wolverine (comics) renamed Wolverine (character). In fact, it's the exact same thing. DarkKnight2149 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. We got sick of this long ago. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: On an unrelated note, I think Joker (comics) should be retitled "The Joker" as that is how the character is commonly known, and keeping that title will help fulfill the purpose "Joker (character)" was created for. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kailash29792 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • That suggestion is intimately related to this AfD. Moving the article to "The Joker" would only work if the focus of that article is shifted away from how the character appears in the comics to the character in general, which its regular editors have strongly resisted. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joker (comics)#In other media already summarises the character's entire history outside of the comics (which is all it needs to do, given the existence of Joker in other media) and it is covered in the lead. What does Joker (character) have that Joker (comics) doesn't, aside from just rehashing Joker (comics) and posting a series of links without actual content? DarkKnight2149 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The articles should be all as one. As with other characters from comics it should be listed as Joker (comics) since that is where it originated. Then put a section for other media for instance. Reb1981 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As explained by Curly Turkey and SMcCandlish. Josh Milburn asked the obvious question (which was inexplicably ignored in the reply - and then followed by more delete votes. This is why I avoid these discussions.) zzz (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Signedzzz: It wasn't ignored. Joker (comics) is about the character and not his appearances in comics. DarkKnight2149 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That statement is ludicrous. Look at the article's title. Look at the article's lead. Look at the discussions about the page (talk page, FAC). Look at the way it splits the topic into "the character" and "the character in other media". The "Joker (comics)" article is not about "the character", and it is the repeated insistence that it is which makes these discussions so frustrating. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not ludicrous at all. "Look at the articles lead" - It's not any different from any other fictional character lead. And yes, it covers other media at the bottom paragraph. "Look at the way it splits the topic into "the character" and "the character in other media"." - Again, not any different from every other fictional character article. I don't know why you think that this one is somehow special. "Look at the article's title" - Did you even read the multiple paragraphs above? It was titled to comply with WP:NCC. As previously mentioned, there is cause to rename Joker (comics). DarkKnight2149 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I Do Not Understand Why I Was Pinged Into This AfD. Apparently because I commented in opposition of a proposed move to a bad disambiguation in 2014?[1] --erachima talk 06:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge; This is a near complete replica of Joker (comics) lifting significant segments of prose from the "base" article. Any rename of the other article should be discussed at that article and not here. There is already a far better article doing what this article is supposed to be doing; Joker in other media. Correction: this article is doing a poorer job of being Joker in other media even though that's not the purpose of this article at all. Granted, a poor article is not a reason to delete in and of itself, but, coupled with the issues of duplicity and lack of functionality, it acts as an additional factor for me to recommend deletion. To be blunt, this isn't even an article, it's a list, even more so when you remove the duplicate content; the first paragraph of the lede and the entire "cultural impact" section. May as well rename it to "List of the Joker's appearances" as that would be a more fitting title. Just as a single example; take Superman. The character has been adapted into numerous films and a TV show, all of which is covered over the course of a few paragraphs titled "in other media", this is a former FA and current B-class article. Quite a few examples of similar structure are provided by DarkKnight in their OP. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr rnddude: when Darkknight intervened, there was an active discussion going on about how to improve the article. The primary author of the Joker (comics) article has stated he wants to keep it focused on the character's appearances in comics, which is why he chose to keep it at Joker (comics) rather than move it to Joker (character). This focus precludes it from being able to be the "base" article, and moving it to Joker (character) would mean more work to refocus the article for the FAC nominator, who has stated he's not interested in doing that work. The editor has done a lot of quality work and deserved to have that work recognized; the move (which is the purpose of this AfD) would prevent that. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In that discussion you bring up Tarzan and Popeye, I don't think either of those articles support your case at all. Both those articles deal with the "character" first and "media appearances" second. If this article is indeed to stick around then it needs to do what it was set out to do, even if it did so poorly or inadequately. If the article is about the "character" then it needs to discuss the character. It does not, all it does is list a bunch of comic, film, and video game appearances (hence it is a list). Which is already done by Joker in other media.
  I do and don't understand the arguments set out simultaneously; the point of the article is to discuss the character as a whole across all media not just in comics, however, it doesn't do that in even a single sentence. Further, what difference does the title make if the discussion is about the character? is the character themself significantly different - notably different - in the comics then in other media. As far as I am aware there are three jokers (gold, silver and bronze era) and those same characteristic traits appear in movies as they do in comics. All that changes is the plot of the story itself. Movie, TV show, and video game articles exist for that content anyway.
  This article as current is a general replica of what exists in other articles. It falls under the purview of WP:ATD-M of the Deletion policy. I recognize that the duplication was an intentional choice by the article's creator and significant contributor to Joker (comics) Darkwarriorblake as a "starting point" for this article but it falls afoul of our existing content policies. There is no issue deleting this article and recreating it at a later time when it meets article guidelines. Again, Joker (comics) is explicit about why it exists and it does not fail to meet criteria. This article does fail to meet criteria.
  Additionally you bring up this consensus from 2014. I... don't see the relevance. It's about the companies not characters; The legal status of the company (Inc., plc or LLC), is not normally included, i.e. Marvel Comics not Marvel Comics plc. When disambiguation is needed use (comics), or (company) where that is not appropriate. Has nothing to do with this case at all.
  As an aside, your comments at Talk:Joker (comics) were... horrible. I have no other description that doesn't slide across the civility barrier. Don't take this personally, but, please refrain from such stupid contentless commentary about other people, it does nothing to further your own arguments, if anything it undermines them. I had resist the urge to dismiss your comments immediately because of it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr rnddude: "Both those articles deal with the "character" first and "media appearances" second"—that's right, as any character article should. The author of Joker (comics) doesn't want to do that, which is why the article is at Joker (comics) and not Joker (character). The purpose of this AfD is to have Joker (comics) moved to Joker (character) (though it is disguised as a simple AfD). That means the article would fail FAC. I can see an argument for that, but I disagree with it. Keep in mind that the title Joker (comics) has a consensus to be moved; the dispute is over where to move it to.
    Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#RfC:_Proposed_rewording_for_instructions_for_disambiguation is not about companies. Where did you get that impression? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• From your edit whose summary is; per closed RfC which changed the wording of the guideline in the "Companies" section. I may have more later, am in a rush right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean this? Neither the edit nor the RfC had anything to do with companies. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit was to section 1.4 "companies" naming conventions not 1.1 "characters" naming conventions. That is well beyond any possible contention. The rfc however, ill need to read through it more thorougly, my skim found several mentions of "companies". Maybe that was misleading. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line under discussion included (company) as one of the DABs. The RfC made no attemtpt to change wording regarding companies, but all the proposed wordings would have had the word "company" in them, retained from the original. The dispute had nothing to do with companies. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I went through both the current guideline and the proposals, in the midst of that I had a thought. I searched The Joker and found that it currently redirects to Joker (comics). So, there doesn't seem anything to "disambiguate" in this instance. Keeping this article is well and truly moot. Most people interested in the character will search "The Joker" and will be automatically redirected to Joker (comics). It would make sense to use that redirect page as the base page without any disambiguating as none is requred since no other Joker takes precendence. I'm sympathetic to your arguments, and if the content of this article was in any way original and useful to the reader I'd argue to keep this page rather than merge but as it stands, Joker (comics) and Joker in other media have covered everything in this article. I also gleaned that the RfC was about the greater concern of disambiguating rather than just companies, but, that really should be separated from section 1.4 companies and put under it's own subsection - say 1.9 Disambiguation - as reading the guideline without an comprehensive understanding of talk page discussions leaves an entirely false perception of the change. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr rnddude: There was a move request that ended in "no consensus" to move to "The Joker". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The primary author of the Joker (comics) article has stated he wants to keep it focused on the character's appearances in comics" - Curly Turkey has failed to prove that, especially given that he has already tried to twist facts at Talk:Joker (comics). And even if it is true, the author does NOT own the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. We don't have "primary authors". As for the improvement of Joker (character), there is nothing to improve. It's just a duplicate of Joker (comics). And as for your Popeye and Tarzan examples, Mr rnddude is correct that they don't help your case. You just inadvertently supported my argument, especially given the numerous other examples that I have provided already (Garfield (character), Batman, Wolverine (character), Hulk (comics), Darth Vader, Count Dracula, Francis Dolarhyde, Hal 9000, nearly every comic character article, ETC). DarkKnight2149 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the original FAC, Darkwarriorblake made several such comments, such as "There is a character that was created in a comic book, the article is about that character. What he does in a film is not an aspect of this character ..." I thought you said you'd read all this stuff? Certainly Darkwarriorblake doesn't OWN the article, but he has put a lot of work into it that deserves to be recognized. If you'd rather derail his work to push a POV ... well, that's what you're doing, isn't it?
Your linked examples are more hot air that skirt the semantic issues. Yes, there are lots of poorly-written articles on Wikipedia. Darkwarriorblake's isn't one of them. I have to wonder why you chose Darth Vader, though, as that article severely undermines your position. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Curly Turkey, but merge the contents of Joker (comics) into this one. There isn't enough distinct material for two separate articles (p.s. which actually I think is Darknight2149's point). For popular characters that are widely known in several media, when it has been discussed (see Wolverine for example), the overall consensus per WP:PRECISION is to have (character) for the main encyclopedic article about the fictional person (irrespective of its origin in comics), and if there's enough material, a subsidiary (comics) or (comic book) article for the timeline of appearances in that form. Having (comics) as the parenthetical disambiguator is discouraged per WP:TITLE, as it doesn't accurately describe the scope of the topic if the character is popular in other media. Diego (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Diego Moya (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

I see the point but I think it would be much better if the Joker (comics) article was renamed to Joker (character). Right now this article is still mostly a copy of the already existing Joker articles and I see no reason to keep both.★Trekker (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the intention is to keep the existing article focused on comics. If moved to (character), the article will have to be overhauled to some extent to meet comprehensiveness and WP:WEIGHT requirements (the article is at FAC). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sections like character biography, characterization and cultural impact are not exclusive to the appearances in comic, that's why (character) is a better descriptor for the content currently located at Joker (comics). Diego (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with assessment made by Diego Moya and would support renaming Joker (comics) as "Joker (character)". Joker (comics) really isn't any different from Wolverine (character) and everything else. DarkKnight2149 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If some editors have been notified by DarkKnight2149, and some others by Curly Turkey, does it still count as canvassing? Diego (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per WP:NCC, 'the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)".' Also, WP:TITLECHANGES. The comics article should be amended to focus solely on the comics, and all other material be in Joker in other media. I found nothing in WP:TITLE to suggest that we shouldn't use comics as was indicated above (only use of the word was a redirect to WP:NCC. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Killer Moff (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Can I ask on what basis you're splitting the character into the (primary) "comics" instantiations and the (secondary) "other" instantiations? Surely the primary article should talk about the character in general, with spin-off articles to talk about particular instantiations (such as the character as he appears in comics, as he appears in films, etc.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The fact is that it's very difficult to talk about the character in general, as there is no consistent depiction. Is the Cesar Romero Joker the same as the Jared Leto Joker? How about the Mark Hamill Joker? Which Mark Hamill Joker, for that matter. I acknowledge that of course the comics character is vastly different over the years as well, but it is much easier to trace the development, which then fed into the other characters in different media. If there is a consensus to change the whole naming system of comic characters, then yes, but we can't do it piecemeal, one article at a time. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not necessarily. Some comics characters (like this one) have existed for 75+ years in continuous publication, sometimes with several comic series at the same time. It is the main form. Film, video game, radio and tv series end but the comics remain. Everything else are spin-offs of the comics characters, their appearances in comics are still the main focus most of the time.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what *Treker said. And I already covered this argument above. That's why Darth Vader is primarily about the film character, Count Dracula is primarily about the novel character, and all of the other many examples I already listed. The problem with all of these Keep arguments is that the majority of them have already been explained away in the paragraphs above. DarkKnight2149 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this page works like a DAB for all the articles about the Joker, which isn't a bad thing considering how many there are. The link to Joker (comics) at the start of the lead needs to go. The article currently titled Joker (comics) would be better titled Joker in comics. A lot of this discussion reminds me of Baron Bifford's attempt to restructure the Superman page. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Argento Surfer (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

That's what templates are for. Wouldn't it just be better to make one of those for the Joker?★Trekker (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the user. A template would help someone who found Joker (comics), scrolled all the way to the bottom, and (if needed), clicked the "show" button. A page like this one would be more useful for users who are looking for something specific, but may not be familiar with (or even know to look for) the template boxes. See WP:CLN. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand, but in that case should we start doing this for every old comic book character with a similarly large history and number of appearances? It seems like a pretty big precedence to establish here.★Trekker (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be done randomly, but there are some characters that could easily sustain articles about their multi-media representations in addition to their comic interpretation(s). As linked above, Baron Bifford tried to do this with Superman. He failed for several reasons (primarily being combative and a sockpuppet), but his aim wasn't one of them. If it were up to me, we'd try this with one article (Joker, for instance) to build consensus and work out some kinks, then expand to other extra-notable characters. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (comics) can't be titled Joker in comics because it's about the character itself and not specifically about all of the appearance that the character has made. And the problem with Joker (character) is that it just rehashes Joker (comics) and provides links without content. There's already a disambiguation page that provides those links. We can add Joker in other media and Alternative versions of Joker to that page. We can also take The Joker (a redirect for Joker (comics)) and redirect it to the disambiguation page. But either way, the current Joker (character) has no reason to exist and needs to go. DarkKnight2149 17:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. The "Creation and development" section only mentions TV or film when they were influenced by the comic. The only example I see of the reverse in the introduction of Harley Quinn. The "biography" section is sourced only from comics and doesn't mention any tv/film adventures. The "origins" section doesn't mention anything but comics. The "characterization" section mentions the 1966 show in passing. The "personality" subsection is comics only. The "relationships" section mentions an old cartoon in passing. Even the "Literary Analysis" section limits itself to comic-based observations. Finally, the fact that there's an "in other media" section implies that the preceding content came from some primary media, and therefore cannot be about the character in general. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the comic book appearances themselves, but about the character that appears in them. That is why the page can never be called Joker in comics. As for the focus being primarily about the comics version of the character, that is true because that is the primary medium that the character appears. Joker (comics)#In other media already summarises the character's entire history outside of the comic. That's all it's supposed to do, as Joker in other media is what goes deeper into that. The character's other media appearances are also covered in the lead. How do you think Joker (comics) is any different from Wolverine (character) and all of the other character articles? DarkKnight2149 19:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine (character) got that name to avoid confusion with Wolverine (comic book), not because of content. As I've pointed out elsewhere, Joker (comics) is poorly disambiguated for the same reason - Joker (comic book), Joker (comic strip), and Joker (graphic novel) are all too similar. If Joker in comics means (to you) that it will be a list of comics he's appeared in, then I guess you have a point. Would Joker (comic character) be more to your liking? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to suggest (comics character). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the merger compromise suggested by DrRC? There's at least some middle ground there, instead of the discussion going in favour of one point of view over the other. DarkKnight2149 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging in and of itself is not an issue, but if the article is DABbed (character) then it must be reworked to conform to that focus. Darkwarriorblake is not interested in doing that, so unless someone else is going to step up to the plate, the merge will mean instant failure of the FAC. There never needed to be two articles—two articles was a solution to the editor wanting to focus on comics. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem might be the name of the article here. I can and in at least some cases would favor seeing multiple articles on some comics characters, but I tend to think that maybe a better division might be between Joker (comics) and Joker in popular culture or something similar, which might to at least a degree better indicate that the subject of the latter article isn't about the comics. Whether there is sufficient material and indicator of notability for this article in particular I don't know, but if the two Batman encyclopedias that have been published by Fleischer and Greenberger discuss the topic as either a standalone article or a significant component of some other article, I guess I could see they might help establish notability of this broad topic area in some form. But I have to question whether there really is sufficient cause for both this article and the Joker in other media article which already exists under that name. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Merge the contents of Joker (comics) into this one. The existence of Joker (comic book) causes unnecessary confusion with Joker (comics), and thus, Joker (character) is more appropriate as it delineates the article's purpose. The lead sentence of Joker (character) should state the character is originally a comic book character, defusing any potential confusion in that regard.

On a side note, this opens up a bigger can of worms regarding comic book character article names. There is too much inconsistency in article names and many are named on a case-by-case basis. Characters with vernacular names who do not have an eponymous comic book title are using "(comics)" in their article titles, such as Beast (comics). However, those with vernacular names and eponymous titles are inconsistently using "(character)", such as Wolverine (character), or "(comics)", such as Flash (comics). If Joker (comics) is changed to Joker (character), then by the same logic, Flash (comics) should be changed to Flash (character). Having "(comics)" in an article title is too easily confused with "(comic book)". It's helpful when we can eliminate "(comics)" from an article title, but with the de facto naming system, it cannot be done away with altogether. This is because some characters who have "(comics)" in their article titles are not the primary reference to that name, such as Cyclops (comics) and Dracula (comics). Therefore, maintaining "(comics)" in article titles under these circumstances is appropriate. Until there is a complete overhaul in creating rules for naming all comic book-related articles to maintain consistency and eliminate confusion, which is inevitable, removing "(comics)" whenever possible is helpful for now. DrRC (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DrRC (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

There really isn't anything to merge, since Joker (character) just repeats Joker (comics), but I overall agree with your assessment. There really is no cause for both Joker (comics) and Joker (character) to exist, and I'm willing to compromise on the first sentence as long as it is clear that the character originated from the comic book medium and that that is the source material. DarkKnight2149 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever argued that the character didn't originate from the comics medium, and nobody ever argued to obscure that fact. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reduntant page when pages on the Joker and the character's media appearances already exists. I also suggest Joker (comics) either be renamed Joker (character) or The Joker.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Merge, or Refactor. There is certainly highly pertinent info in this article that is not currently in Joker (comics). That material should absolutely be kept, one way or another – whether by keeping this article, merging the two articles, or some other form of refactoring that retains all info and loses none. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender did you bother investigating other Joker-related pages that already cover the content in this article like Joker in other media and Alternate versions of the Joker?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick: Perhaps there are too many articles. Why not merge some of them over here? Each of those articles is a mere 13kb of readable prose, some of it overlapping. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard to use in for comics characters on wikipedia. I don't see what advantage emerging any of it into this article has for anyone. What good would that do exactly? They're not that short.★Trekker (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are too many articles. Joker in other media and Joker (character) are too similar in content. Joker (character) and Joker (comics) should be merged using the title "Joker (character)" or simply "The Joker", without the minutiae found in Joker in other media. As stated above, the title "Joker (comics)" should not be used, since it's too easily confused with Joker (comic book). Joker in other media can exist as a separate, expanded article which covers the Joker's comprehensive appearances outside the comic book medium. The Joker's appearances in other media will continue to grow, and Joker in other media should be a dedicated article to these non-comic appearances that would otherwise be too cumbersome for the character's main article. DrRC (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker: Spinoff subarticles are justified only when there's sufficient sourced and properly wieghted content to justify it. There is no "standard" to have these articles automatically. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still didn't really give a reason to why it would be better to set a precedence that this is something we should do, just so you can keep this rehash article. Both the other media and alternative articles should be expanded if anything. There's lots to say about the different versions of the joker. Both of those articles will get new examples to them. Either way we put it this article's content still useless.★Trekker (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker—you may disagree with my reasons, but don't pretend "still [have]n't really give[n] a reason". Don't ignore the fact that the whole reason for this AfD is to make room to move Joker (comics) here, which is a problem nobody's volunteering to deal with. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Since when was this entire afd about a move? I'm not pretending, as far as I can see you haven't given a reason that remotely makes sense to me. Lets call it a disagreement beauce we're both clearly getting nowhere with this discussion. I'm out.★Trekker (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant and should be redirected to Joker (comics). Brojam (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is already one page about this specific topic that quite substantially covers this. We don't need a duplicate article for something as broad and expansively covered as this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, Move, Merge, but don't delete. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only part of the article that seems "complete" is the Cultural impact section, and its content is already in Joker (comics). Besides, we have Joker in other media and there's even a The Joker (The Dark Knight) article for the version by Heath Ledger. Facu-el Millo (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: As suggested/requested by the closing admin in this ANI thread, I have tagged the !votes that were directly canvassed by the nominator Darkknight2149 (via talk page notices to over a dozen editors, not all of whom responded) and by Curly Turkey (via pings to over a dozen editors, not all of whom responded, in the middle of this page). Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Softlavender, maybe put this at the top above the nomination itself. Further participation over the next coming days might make your post less noticeable. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry bout that, Softlavender. Re-ping. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK where it is (chronologically correct placement). It's bolded, and the admin will see it, and the ANI thread has already been noted up higher. If anyone else who was pinged or canvassed !votes, I'll try to tag them, or if I miss them let me know on my talk page, or tag them yourself. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Dark Knight, when your nomination rationale for an AfD is pushing 600 words long, you can bet it's a bad-faith nomination. If in the future you AfD an article, keep the rationale 100 words or less, stick to policy and guidelines, and do not mention other editors. However this ends up spinning, if there is one and only one base-page title for an article on the Joker, in my opinion the title of that article should be The Joker (without redirect) or Joker (character), just like Batman or Wolverine (character), because, like many of the most well-known characters who originated in the world of comic books, this character is much more well known outside of comic books than inside. Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Softlavender: I am a reputable veteran editor that is known for strictly following and enforcing the guidelines, as well as dealing with vandalism and disruptive editors. I can say without a doubt that you are reaching, my friend. There is nothing remotely conspicuous about going into great detail about why I think a controversial article should be deleted and addressing all of the arguments against that deletion without attacking the opposer (who was tagged). It's certainly more mature than filing a false WP:CANVASS report against Curly Turkey and is probably why the majority of people (even when you discount those allegedly canvassed) seem to either support deleting it or merging it with Joker (comics). And rest assured, any attempt to delete or alter any of my reasoning for the nomination will be met with immediate scutiny. DarkKnight2149 01:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both Joker articles to the most sensible name, at Joker (character). They even have the same opening sentence: these articles are both about the character, there is no scope difference between them.

Now the Joker is an important character, and there is a size argument for splitting the article. However that's not what has happened here: the "comics" article does have a historical section on the comic-only coverage, but that is overshadowed by the sections on characterisation and even one on film and TV portrayals. At present any reader wanting to read the Joker's backstory or character has to read both articles piecemeal, hopping between them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:, the section on characterization is sourced entirely to comic books with only two off-hand mentions of the 1966 tv show and a 70s animated show. The "in other media" section is 606 words out of nearly 9000 words (>7%) and is all real-world information on actors and awards. There's actually nothing about the characterization of the Joker outside of comics in the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Me, I was playing with some poker chips yesterday that had the Joker on. The character has a significant reach into many media now. Organising our coverage of such complexity is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Per WP:NOTBURO, local "regulations" have little weight in this. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More or less consistent with what I said below, maybe, and this is just a maybe, the Comics WikiProject could come up with some useful guidelines on how to structure topics such as this one which might have name overlap with publications or which might merit several subarticles of the main article. It might also perhaps come up with a preferred list of what to spin out first, second, etc. So, for instance, that might make it easier to determine whether "X in other media" or "X in popular culture" is preferable in a given case. Right now, for instance, I myself don't know which title would be preferable for subjects which have one or more action figures, retail costumes or masks, and other memorabilia or promotional material like maybe Captain America shields or masks for Mark Shaw (Manhunter), one of which was included in the purchase of the first issue of his title in various promotions. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Close with no action and start an RfC. This is obviously too big and messy for an AfD, so an RfC should be started based on a neutral summation of the arguments advanced here, and a consensus be sought on how many articles should cover popular characters that span media (comics, novels, movies, TV shows...), how that fits with WP:SS, disambiguation, or other Wikipedia features, and finally how to apply those issues in this particular case. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with no action and start an RfC on structuring such multi-article content as per Jclemens above. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note #0: It would seem that the WP:ANI discussion was closed with a lack of substantial evidence that I canvassed. I just wanted to make it clear that, as a reputable user of this Wiki, I fully intend on forgeting these WP:CANVASS accusations happened and going right back to editing as usual. I feel no guilt, as I am an innocent editor. DarkKnight2149 01:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "It seems to me that there is some agreement that this was indeed very selective canvassing; that's not OK." [2] equates to "a lack of substantial evidence that I canvassed"? Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The part where he feels no guilt. Check out his edit comment here. Does this mean more canvassing in the future because he feels so strongly he's done no wrong? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Darkknight2149, there was canvassing. Stop doing it or you will very likely be blocked. Please listen to other editors. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely per nom. I believe the !keepers' concerns can be addressed by rewriting the "In other media" section. I will offer my suggestions about doing this at the FAC page soon.—indopug (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: I think in most cases the "(comics)" disambiguation is fine for most comic book characters. I also think that the (comics) disambiguation is fine for characters that originated in comics but have become popular in other forms of media outside of comics. Just because a character has become popular outside of comics does not mean that the comics version is not independently notable. However, I am not opposed to creating a separate set index article linking to multiple versions or appearances of the same character. I am against rewriting existing articles to force the creation of a hodgepodge of different versions while not accounting for WP:SYN, WP:WEIGHT and general confusion to the reader. I believe this was done at Magneto (comics) awhile back and was thankfully reverted. Feel free to respond, just know that I will more than likely not respond back as I do not want nor have the time to engage in a lengthy discussion on this topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TriiipleThreat (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

The Magneto change he mentioned were made here and discussed here. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep As it is the article is in list format, mostly lacks sources, and manages to duplicate content from another article. Quite a poor article. However there is scope for expansion, and some of its current sections can be fleshed out. I checked Joker in other media, and several of its sections make no mention of the character's depiction and characterization. Just "appeared here" and "appeared there". We could use a more in-depth article, assuming there are available published sources. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - it's perfectly plausible that somebody would type in "Joker (character)" so I would suggest making it a redirect to "Joker (comics)". DrStrauss talk 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

A lot of people are suggesting that we merge Joker (character) with another article (probably Joker (comics)). Given that that's probably the closest we're going to get to a middle ground, perhaps we should should start discussing how a merge would work. If we are merging Joker (character) with Joker (comics), I'm willing to compromise on the focus of the lead (within reason), as long as it is made clear that the comics are the source material. Thoughts? DarkKnight2149 01:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I think maybe, like I said above, closing the discussion here without action and starting a discussion regarding which spinout articles to create first and/or under specific circumstances might be better. Regarding whether the comics are the source material for all points of the character, the Heath Ledger Joker certainly had a different character history than any of the print versions. To my eyes, the most substantial part of the Joker character article is the "cultural impact" section, and, on that basis, I think maybe moving at least that content to Joker in popular culture, along with maybe any content on other memorabilia and ancillary materials, might be better. But, that is just the opinion of one editor who doesn't spend a lot of time in the comics field here, and I think broader discussion by more knowledgable editors regarding this case and other related cases would be probably more useful than my own personal opinions. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My position since the first FAC is that the base article must treat the character as a character in general, even if WP:WEIGHT means more coverage of the character's appearance in comics than in other media. But the base article cannot focus so preponderantly on comics and treat the character's appearances in other appearances as an afterthought. If that means one comprehensive article, fine; if it means two or more, fine. The idea that "the comics version of the character is the character" has to be tossed, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me that there is still significant disagreement between the two of you, and, presumably (?), between other editors as well, as to which article should be the main article on characters in comics. If that is the case, then I think maybe halting the discussion here to allow you all first hammer out the details about multiple article content structure by the comics editors, and, presumably, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises editors and other individuals who deal with such multiple media topics, and then start some form of broad RfC for policies and guidelines on the single or multiple "drafts" which might be created for consideration. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a character features predominantly in comics (à la Goodman Beaver) then of course per WP:WEIGHT the article will be predominantly about the character's comics appearances. The fact that there's an entire 19kb article on one film manifestation of Joker alone suggests that a base Joker article needs to give up a little room to these various incarnations of the character (and the whole "fictional supervillain from American comic book publisher DC Comics" in that article's opening line only show how deeply entrenched WP:COMICS POV is with these articles). If the base Joker article has more on comics than on other media, that's neither surprising nor problematic, again per WP:WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the existence of Joker (comic book), Joker (comic strip), and Joker (graphic novel), I think Joker (comics) should be a DAB page. The contents currently at (comics) should be moved, and I think (comics character) is the best fit since it's exclusively about the characterization in the comic books. I don't have a strong opinion about what happens to the (character) page, but I do think having an article about the characterization across all media would be worthwhile. Such things have failed before, but there's been enough coverage of Joker to source it properly. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to merging Joker (character) and Joker (comics), the article should cover all notable mediums with WP:WEIGHT taken into account, as Curly Turkey pointed out. I suggest renaming the article to simply “The Joker”, but if that name isn't doable, Joker (character) should be used for reasons I stated above. “Joker in other media” is currently a compendium of the character’s non-comic appearances, and details regarding non-comic appearances should be further expanded upon in that article. DrRC (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify here DrRC, Joker (comics) does cover all notable mediums at present and it did before the split to Joker character. It discusses things from the comics that then influenced the tv show that in turn influenced the comics and it's media section covers all media appearances. It doesn't cover them in detail because there are explicitly already separate articles for that in every case, for every tv show, for every film, and every game. No more weight could be given to them in the Joker (comics) article without it being undue and duplicating content elsewhere. The Joke (comics) article covers the development of the original character which in turn has influenced other media or where appropriate, those other media have been absorbed into the comic, and it covers general personality traits, design traits, relationship traits, powers and abilities. Everything has been given a very due weight, but it was not appropriate to discuss those topics in Joker (comics) any more than they already were. The only things split to Joker (character) were pop culture and real world things that could be explicitly traced back to non-comic versions of the character, such as rides based on The Dark Knight. The comic centric plot is the only really comic-centric thing in the article and it's kept to an absolute minimum, relaying only things that influenced the characters development (some of which were adapted to other media) and it links to the relevant articles where possible (this is less so for comics). It's not like say Magneto (comics) that is basically a fan wikia of nothing but plot. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:13, 14 January 2017 (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.

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. Tone 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Connection[edit]

Caribbean Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Keep - Changing view of article in light of newly found sources. DivaKnockouts if you're actually going to add the references, feel free to close this discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced compilation album that failed to chart. There is an Allmusic review for it, but that is the extent of its coverage. Notable artists on the album are not relevant to its own independent relevance. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The album charted at number 17 on the Billboard Latin Albums chart, [3] and number 3 on the Billboard Latin Rhythm Albums chart. [4] Article could easily be improved - DivaKnockouts 13:34, 13 January 2017 (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.

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 Move to draft, redirect to Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards and fully protect 'til March 12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Kids' Choice Awards[edit]

2017 Kids' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON. Will certainly be notable when it actually happens. Right not is is just a bunch of empty sections. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - per nom. Can be worked on in Draft/User space and moved to mainspace when there are sufficient sources for an article. Ajpolino (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt with a redirect to Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards until nominations are released; KCA articles have been infamous for IP 'wishlist' vandalism every single year until the noms are released. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft space for now, and also follow Mrschimpf's suggestion to salt with a redirect to Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. Maybe "merge" a mention of the date of the 2017 awards ceremony into the main article, too. Deli nk (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Light2021 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to NKCA until February 2017. — Wyliepedia 13:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate and salt redirect to NKCA until March 12.  Fails WP:SUSTAINED for a future event.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2017 (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.

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 5 Seconds of Summer. (non-admin closure)  — Yash ^talk stalk 22:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Everything We Ever Said[edit]

This Is Everything We Ever Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as a categorized ((R from album)) to the artist article 5 Seconds of Summer for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for recordings is met. — Sam Sailor 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to artist article 5 Seconds of Summer - Cannot find IRS to demonstrate any notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer; source searches are providing no significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 15 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyi Maqubela[edit]

Kanyi Maqubela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable, head of quite minor fund. Refs are mere reports, or his own writings DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not a resume hosting service. Nothing stands out about this subject; sources are questionable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear advertising with our policies allowing deletion alone. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject is young and could become notable in the future, but I did not find substantial coverage from independent reliable sources to make a case now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Tone 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzagate (disambiguation)[edit]

Pizzagate (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:TWODABS. Various move discussions have resulted in the page Pizzagate becoming a redirect to Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which has a hatnote directing to the Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate, which this page formerly redirected to prior to recent notable events in the United States. This disambiguation page is redundant, and since it is fairly recently created there's not likely to be any pages linking to it, so it ought to be deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just reiterating my comment on the talk page of this very article. The move was performed but the disambiguation page was not removed at the time, which technically should have happened. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TWODABS and reasons stated by nom. APK whisper in my ear 11:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom note - the prior discussion which led to this page being moved to its current title seems to have closed with a rough consensus to delete the page rather than move it, but the closing administrator opted to move it as per the original request. Not wrong per se but I ought to have pinged Anthony Appleyard when I opened this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "Pizzagate" was a disambugation page, but is currently a redirect to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Unless there are more meanings for the term, a disambugation page is not needed. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. DrStrauss talk 15:38, 15 January 2017 (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.

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa Benedek[edit]

Elissa Benedek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, unsourced Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#1 through GS citations and WP:Prof#6. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, per Xxanthippe. She meets WP:Notability (academics) #6 as a past president of the American Psychiatric Association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being president of the APA clearly marks her out as a highly notable psychologist (WP:PROF#C8). However, it's a BLP so we should definitely add sources as a matter of urgency. – Joe (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will find well over 1000 sources if you click on the scholar link above. See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• OK, my bad. Withdrawing nomination, and tagging the article for sourcing. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Tone 17:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Łódź[edit]

Newcastle Łódź (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability for a football (soccer)team, having only played at city level XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1900s there were just City Championships in this territorys (former Poland) --Erixson (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of satisfying WP:FOOTYN, let alone GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 10:54, 14 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Greenfield[edit]

Daniel Greenfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All sources provided are not independent of subject. I was unable to turn up any independent reliable coverage of Greenfield. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources in this BLP. Lots of people are "critical of Islam", so join the crowd. There is nothing that indicates that this blogger is notable. His somewhat common name precludes an useful and ordinary Google search. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to locate RS material sufficient for GNG. No major awards. No widely recognized contribution to his field. Nothing found to support WP:AUTHOR. Gab4gab (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 16 January 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Ghilascu[edit]

Natalia Ghilascu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete and Salt given it was not only deleted at the first AfD, but then also G4 last month and here is the advertising with advertising sources once again, thus affecting the community's efforts, time and attention with no actual improvements; everything shown and listed is simply published and republished company announcements, PR, listings and other triviality hence not satisfying our policies. At best, given the repeated attempts at advertising, the only path now is AfC. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and work on it I've cleaned up the article by copyediting, adding inline citations, deleting unsourced content, and trying to generally improve the article (and remove a lot of...advertise-y statements). I think it can be fixed to the point that it will become a good article. Just my opinion of course. At least give it a little more time to improve. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nerd1a4i's changes have improved this to the extent that it's almost unrelated to the article I previously deleted, and this now looks viable. WP:G4 is a mechanism by which we can delete pages which have been previously deleted at AFD, not a mechanism by which we must. ‑ Iridescent 09:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per major improvements to the article. Bradv 23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. for further rewriting. The recent improvements have moved it into the form of a WP article, but it still remains self-indulgent autobiography. I think there is probably notability there at a ntional level, but I cannot judge because of unfamiliarity the the country and the language. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I tend to agree with DGG that there's a decent chance the subject is notable, but as it stands, out of 81 references, a dozen are from the news portal run by Ghilașcu (by the way, that's how her name is spelled), discriminare.md, and a good deal more come from non-independent or poor-quality sources. So this should go back to the drawing board, as it isn't ready for mainspace. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the improvements made to the article --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:21, 16 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danijel Simic[edit]

Danijel Simic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notable but zero reference on a new BLP article. scope_creep (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDelete - Article has near-zero sources in English (or any language other than Serbian), meaning that corrections probably need to be made by the article creator. I would prefer incubation or moving to draft space. However, since the same text is already at Football player11, deletion is acceptable given lack of sources to establish notability. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC) (So what is the specific reason for the AfD? Is it WP:DEL7 (attempts at sourcing failed), or are you asserting WP:DEL8 (lack of notability)? And is the problem to such an extent that it cannot be solved by any alternatives to deletion? Especially given that it's a new article, I'm not sure deletion is the best call here (especially since, from what I understood, you are not contesting the topic's notability). --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment. We have WP:BLPPROD for cases like this. --Michig (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know. I put it into Afd accidentally. I initially meant that to put into BLP-Prod, but the article is here now. Yes he is probably notable, but that is beside the point. The article has NO sources, therefore for an BLP means BLP-Prod. I can't understand why folk can't grasp this simple assertion. I don't know anything about football. scope_creep (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize if my question felt aggressive somehow, that was not my intention. As a new editor, I am still learning about the ins and outs. Now I've also learned about BLPPROD, so I've learned something new as well. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the deletion argument is that the player is notable? Then add some references, and close the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Nfitz: why are you claiming he is notable when there are no reliable sources verifying that?! GiantSnowman 19:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was taking the nomination statement that he is notable, at face-value. Are you saying the nominator is wrong? This has to be the most bizarre nomination I've seen. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league, at least not as far as I can see. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That possibly is why there is no references. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @(User_talk:Talk2chun), I didn't think it was aggressive in the least. scope_creep (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Hummer[edit]

John L. Hummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Puff piece article about healthcare executive. A lot of coverage, but barely any about the man. Fails to assert WP:BIO and subsequently fails to assert TRUE for WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lots of trivial mentions, but nothing substantial or in depth, especially considering quality of sources. Fails notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Stein (mayor)[edit]

John Stein (mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This person was the mayor of Wasilla right before "you know who" got elected. The sources are all either routine coverage of the election or mention him tangenitally in articles focussed on "that other mayor who came next". Notability is not inherited and being mayor of a suburb is not in and of itself sufficient to establish notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox, I just looked at the previous AfD, and saw that the consensus back then was to Keep. One of the reasons cited was WP:LOCAL and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. How is the situation different this time to merit deletion (as opposed to any alternatives to deletion)? --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters the NOTBIGENOUGH link doesn't seem to work in that it leads to a section of WP:ATA that addresses a different issue. It would appear that, whatever this was, it has been removed. This was the case at the time of the last nomination as well. So,while ATA is a well-known and oft-cited set of unofficial guidelines, linking to a non-existent section of an essay is not a compelling argument at all. One would assume that whenever it was removed, it was because th community no longer supported it. On the other hand, INHERIT (which I referenced in my nomination) is a much more well-known aspect of that same essay and is still present in it that argues that argues against the idea of inherint notability.

As for LOCAL, that is also an essay, and I don't believe it is one that enjoys broad community support as opposed to the other page I cited in my nomination, ROUTINE, which is part of the actual notability guideline and argues that coverage of an election (or other routine local events) does not impart notability on everyone who particpated in, or even the winner of, said election. We don't generally have articles on each mayor of a suburb, this was an exception to that due to one particular mayor who went on to get massive amounts of press attention for things that she did after being mayor of Wasilla, the post itself is not inherintly notable.

So, while I don't think the closer had much choice but to close it as keep at the time, I believe those arguments were flawed and are refuted by my nomination statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. I don't necessarily disagree with you (I'm still doubting between WP:INHERIT and WP:LOCAL, but inching more towards INHERIT now), and I'm not sure whether WP:ROUTINE really applies here. Hopefully you could also answer the second part of my question, which was about whether any alternatives to deletion could apply here (I'm thinking for example of merging any relevant info to the page of "you know who").--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I've ever heard of merging a BLP article into another one, but I think she's been coveed pretty thoroughly already, not sure there's anything here that needs to be replicatd there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the people of Alaska seem to think the position he held was important enough. This small town was growing into a city while he was mayor. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see even a vague reference to a relevant content policy here, seems more liek an argument from a purely emotional standpoint. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mayors of small towns are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of serving as mayor. Strictly speaking the size of the city itself is not the controlling factor, as any mayor of any size of city can keep an article if the sourcing is solid enough to actually pass WP:GNG, so this is not a WP:NOTBIGENOUGH argument — but the size of city is relevant to the question of whether a presumption of notability (a/k/a "the benefit of the doubt") is granted to a mayor in the absence of a GNG-satisfying volume of sourcing. All of the sourcing here just namechecks his existence as Sarah Palin's predecessor in an article about Palin, with the exception of one piece of purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage of him failing to win election as mayor of a different small city 14 years later — which means that none of the sources are about Stein to the degree necessary for a GNG pass. If somebody could properly source an article about him, then things would be different — but the sourcing shown here does not entitle him to an article just for the fact of being a mayor, because he isn't the subject of any of it. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: although he is only a town mayor, he is mentioned in several sources, some of which are listed on the page. It undoubtedly is in need of general cleanup but that can be done. DrStrauss talk 15:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We require him to be more than just mentioned in several sources. He has to be substantively the subject of enough sources to pass WP:GNG, but that's not what's being shown here: the sources are almost entirely about Sarah Palin, and just glancingly namecheck Stein's existence as her predecessor. Stein, in his own right, is not the subject of even one of the sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: @Bearcat: makes a convincing argument therefore I am changing to delete. DrStrauss talk 19:38, 15 January 2017 (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.

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furio De Monaco[edit]

Furio De Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Third tier league player. scope_creep (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Scope creep: WP:NBASKETBALL you mean. — Sam Sailor 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Indeedy. I'll fix it. scope_creep (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. He played for Pallacanestro Aurora Desio [it] 1993–94 in Serie A2 and for Olimpia Basket Pistoia 1994–96 in Serie A1. Would that not suffice for WP:NBASKETBALL #1? — Sam Sailor 15:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know anything about basketball. When I looked up the third linked article, it said third tier league out of four leagues. If you think those are sufficient and satisfy the criteria, then I'm happy. Serie A1. Coolio. Speedy Keep. scope_creep (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I believe the above mentioned qualifies for WP:NBASKETBALL. Please ping me, if I am mistaken. — Sam Sailor 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's clearly not a "Third tier league player" if he's played in Lega Basket Serie A, as stated, which is Italy's top league, and listed in WP:NBASKETBALL as a league that confers notability. Not sure why this has been nominated, based on that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Mz7 (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brefo David[edit]

Brefo David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NFOOTBALL as well as WP:BASIC. — Sam Sailor 01:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability as a footballer and otherwise. I'm not finding sources to support this person's achievements.Demitrius39 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never made an appearance in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Tone 17:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Movies and TV Series Related to the History of England[edit]

List of Movies and TV Series Related to the History of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted for the same reasons that List of Movies and TV Series Related to the History of Italy(AFD) is being deleted. One reason that this article should be deleted is because it is WP:LISTCRUFT since it satisfies definitions #3,#4, #6, and #12. The article should also be deleted because the topic is too broad and "related" is vague term. It also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #6 which states "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories." This applies because the list is a non encyclopedic cross category. KAP03 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The list may be deleted, as per the Italian one, for content issues -- but the nominator continues to try different jumbled concoctions of policies in search of a winning combination, which in some cases make no sense. In this case, saying and apparently believing that a list is a category and that WP:OC applies to list. The Italian Afd is not yet closed and perhaps should have been allowed to run its course first. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to WP:NOTDIRECTORY #6 not Wikipedia:Overcategorization. KAP03 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- There is so much history on TV and screen that this is not a useful category. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish documentaries from dramas, which tend to be a variety of historical novels that intertwine history and a novelist's inventions, necessary to fill gaps in what is known or just to make a good story. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Peterkingiron; this list is likely to be indiscriminate; you could even argue that Doctor Who and Dad's Army etc. are related to the history of England even if they are entirely fictional. Spiderone 12:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless. Far too general to ever be a useful article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article is kept, its title should probably be changed (per the Italy discussion). I'm curious to see how the related Italy-based list's AfD goes before !voting here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Continuing my point from the Italy discussion, the portrayal of history in film and television is as notably as its portrayal in writings (aka historical fiction). How history is portrayed in "Dad's Army" and "Dr. Who" is important in itself, not just as a plot device. Novelizations of both have been described as historical fiction for instance. And the historical setting of "Dad's Army" (see: Nicholas, Siân. "HISTORY, REVISIONISM AND TELEVISION DRAMA: Foyle's War and the ‘myth of 1940’." Media History 13, no. 2-3 (2007): 203-219.) and of individual Dr. Who episodes (see Hobden, Fiona. "History Meets Fiction in Doctor Who,‘The Fires of Pompeii’: A BBC Reception of Ancient Rome on Screen and Online." Greece and Rome (Second Series) 56.02 (2009): 147-163. and Orthia, Lindy A. "“Sociopathetic Abscess” or “Yawning Chasm”? The Absent Postcolonial Transition in Doctor Who." The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 45, no. 2 (2010): 207-225.) is of broad interest. So while the title is clunky, a list of the portrayal of history on screen is notable and it makes sense to split such a list by country portrayed. I don't understand what further criteria are needed other than that the show take place in a period before the show aired historicism portrayed is itself considered notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because such categories are useful. (I am all about making WP user-friendly.) But sections should be split as article grows, and it might be might eventually be more useful to use this article mostly as a directory linking towards subcategories. I was of 2 minds about this article at first, so I checked a couple of obvious titles. Take, The Scarlet Pimpernel, for example, a Novel that has been made into a dozen films; it is categorized in Category:Napoleonic Wars films, but not under England- or Categories for Category:Films by decade of setting, and, of course, categories of novels Category:Novels set in 19th-century Russia, Category:Novels set in Victorian England and, well, so many categories that I am puzzled to understand why this one should not be kept. Although I do wonder if it would be more useful split into categories such as Category:Films set in 16th century Britain as a user-helpful subset of the very large Category:Films set in the 16th century.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the list criterion is both hopelessly broad and impossible to define - how related is related? No doubt there is room here for several better-defined lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a better definition or title for a list of English-setting historical fiction on screen? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of film adaptations of Jane Austen novels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think any lists of historical fiction on screen by subject-country would be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't considered the matter—it sounds risky—but the sharpness of the list criteria would be critical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting position, although I'm not sure what you mean by risky. I certainly disagree. I think a list like this is useful, interesting, and encyclopedic (the criteria for stand alone lists at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists seem to be that the list be non-trivial, encyclopedic, or related to human knowledge). As I pointed out in the Italy discussion, similar issues arise in lots of lists, including everything in Category:Lists of historical period drama films and List of historical novels#Italy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Italy list was rightly deleted. All loosely-defined lists (see WP:LISTCRITERIA) are subject to AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I've pointed out at the Italy discussion, grouping historical movies and tv shows by subject-country is common in academic film study, so while the criteria for selection is broad, I do feel like it is encyclopedic and based on reliable sources. You may, of course, disagree. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As with the now-deceased Italy list, "related" is just too nebulous, and there's a lot of English history and many, many more films about it, which makes things very unwieldy. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a hypothetical concern? The page isn't yet unwieldy and when it is, it could be split by historical era.Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Necrothesp. There is probably a right way to do something like this but this article isn't it. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- far too vague and broad to be of any use. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The topic is too broad and indefinite. This list is worse than the similar list about Italy, which was recently deleted, because England is only part of the United Kingdom and many of the films and series listed are not specific to England. This list would be more suitably turned into a category. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. The consensus is to delete all but the Olympics-related articles. Is there some script to batch-delete the articles or should that be done manually? Tone 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of junior cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships[edit]

List of junior cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary list, when all the athletes competing are already in the results article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

List of under-23 cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of under-23 cyclists at the 2014 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2014 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of junior cyclists at the 2014 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of under-23 cyclists at the 2013 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2013 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of junior cyclists at the 2013 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2012 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2011 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2010 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of under-23 cyclists at the 2010 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2009 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2008 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2007 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of elite cyclists at the 2006 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of entrants at the 2010 UCI Track Cycling World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of entrants at the 2011 UCI Track Cycling World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of entrants at the 2012 UCI Track Cycling World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of entrants at the 2015 UCI Track Cycling World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of entrants at the 2016 UCI Track Cycling World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also adding more:

List of cyclists at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of under-23 cyclists at the 2006 UCI Road World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also adding more:

List of archers at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of badminton players at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of canoeists at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of divers at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of gymnasts at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of judoka at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of taekwondo practitioners at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also adding more:

List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2001 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2002 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2005 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2009 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2013 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2014 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of weightlifters at the 2015 World Weightlifting Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete - Redundant list of athletes that is already available elsewhere.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - More of SvG's bot-created articles. All redundant. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Articles are not bot-created. Lists meet notability standards, why are they redundant? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nimrodbr (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Whoever is closing this should ignore this vote unless an explanation is provided. Smartyllama (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

1) Not a valid reason for deletion. The information might be found on seperate other pages, but a list page is made to have an overview. All the information of notable lists on Wikipedia can be found on other Wikipedia pages. Example UCI Track Cycling World Championships – Women's omnium.

2) The weightlifters lists by previous discussions: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2006 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2007 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2010 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2011 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 2003 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 1998 World Weightlifting Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weightlifters at the 1999 World Weightlifting Championships,

3) The cycling and Olympic lists all meet WP:LISTPEOPLE

4) The List of Dutch Olympic cyclists and other Olympic lists are the same kind of list as List of Olympic female gymnasts for Canada, List of Australian Winter Olympians, List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada, List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, List of Olympians and Paralympians from Peel, Ontario, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Bulgaria, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Australia, List of Olympic female gymnasts for France, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Great Britain, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Hungary, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Italy, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Romania, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Russia, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Spain, List of Olympic female gymnasts for the Soviet Union, List of Olympic female gymnasts for Ukraine, List of Olympic female gymnasts for the United States, List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Finland, List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States, List of New Zealand rowers at the Summer Olympics, List of Salvadorian Olympians, List of 49er class sailors at the Summer Olympics, List of sailors at the Summer Olympics (alphabetically) (do I need to list more?)

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. 4 there is a difference. These are all inclusive across all years. The lists nominated for discussion are for one specific year. I am retroactively withdrawing two of the nominations: List of Turkish weightlifters and List of Dutch Olympic cyclists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. A list for all competitors at the 2016 Summer Olympics would be too long. A list of competitors at the different sports are great and valuable. There can be found for instance which cyclists participated at road and track events (see List of cyclists at the 2012 Summer Olympics). This kind of inforamtion is hardly to find somewhere else. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the ones of the form list of x at the xxxx summer olympics. SvG's arguments on those are convincing, and they do add real value to wikipedia even if they are redundant. Weak Keep the UCI cyclist articles for the same reason, but they are less valuable to wikipedia. No opinion on the other nominated articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Double info, failure - as usual - to give independent sources The Banner talk 02:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most but keep the ones for the Olympics. Consensus is that these things are notable the Olympics, but not for single-sport events. Smartyllama (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all – mass created spam articles, just like the other billion that have wasted peoples' time at AfD. Laurdecl ^talk 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 15 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Tone 17:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenlife Gaming[edit]

Suddenlife Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. It is a neologism, not notable and no reliable sourcing. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like complete nonsense, In all my years as a gamer I've never heard of this term. Layla ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 18:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Seems from the sources to be a German company’s name for their ARG product/experience, and the content reads like a promotional piece for their product. So not a notable topic, while the company seems to just consist of a couple of people doing stuff for their friends, so is not notable either.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't usually use "I've never heard of it" as a factor when I'm deciding on a !vote for an AfD discussion, but here we are. A quick Google has told me that this is a machine-translation of an article on the German-language Wikipedia with a few tweaks - for example, the word Neologismus has been removed before it was posted to the English-language Wiki. That brings me back to my point - I'll give you three guesses what neologismus means, folks? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems like a promotional article on a non-notable subject. I note that apart from working on this article, the creator has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2017 (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.

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 Delete. There is consensus here to delete. (It would also qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G5, as the article was created by a block-evading editor, with no contributions from anyone else except correcting a couple of links and nominating for deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Edwards (basketball)[edit]

David Edwards (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was deprodded with the following rationale: " Inidividual is independently covered, 2nd place for Francis Pomeroy Naismith award passes WP:NCOLLATH". However, that is not what WP:NCOLLATH says, it clearly says "Have won a national award" (my emphasis). Other than that, this is borderline, but not, imo, notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is rare to find a sportsperson that fails our super-inclusive notability criteria for that profession, but as the nom notes, this one does fail it. So - delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Covered in multiple sources including Passes WP:NCOLLATH via being second place for a major award NCAA Award the Francis Pomeroy Naismith and Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Covered in the Washington Post [5] Times Ledger [6] and the NY Times [7]. Easily passes GNG BlackAmerican (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the coverage of his basketball career is not enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not pass GNG. Agree with nominator, it is borderline but does not check through.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2017 (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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lethality[edit]

Lethality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:DICDEF this is a stub not a dictionary entry about a word. See also our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a stub nobody seems interested in expanding it over the last 7 years. There are no references. What more would an expanded article say?Rathfelder (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Entire books are written about the concept such as Lethality in Combat. There is plenty of technical content out there such as Lethality Concept. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Andrew Davidson that this is a notable topic for which sources can be found. (Point of order - is this the third nomination or the first? I can't find the previous ones.) Felsic2 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are recent but empty and and so seem to be false starts. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly - I had some technical problems. I have no objection to the preservation of the article if it is improved.Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem - it just made me wonder if I was missing something. As for the article, what matters is how notable the topic is, not how good the present article is. With this Google search, I'm seeing books covering several aspects of "lethality", such as "Small Arms Lethality", "Carbon Monoxide Lethality", and so on. Felsic2 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DEADLINE. This clearly could be expanded in any number of suitable ways; the fact that it hasn't been yet is not a reason for deletion. Let's trust that someone shall take it on in due time.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Andrew D., a subject on which numerous books have been written is notable. Per WP:IMPATIENT, "nobody seems interested in expanding it" is not an argument for delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2017 (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.

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Empires[edit]

Oriental Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete as not notable. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2017 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Clipper[edit]

Liberty Clipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Uncited, unreferenced article about a private sailing vessel. PROD was declined with no reason given. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per our editing policy, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The nomination fails WP:BEFORE as sources are easy to find, for example Chapman Great Sailing Ships of the World. The PROD was disruptive as the article is newly created by a new editor and so proposing deletion is obviously controversial and contrary to WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, all the sources do is confirm that it exists. I'm not debating its existence - I'm saying that it isn't Notable - has the vessel taken part in any notable events, for example? If the standard for notability is merely proving that something exists then that's a pretty low bar. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources confirm that sources exist and that's what our notability guideline is all about. Whether the ship has taken part in events is irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably find sources that prove a lot of things exist - it wouldn't automatically mean that the GNG threshold is met. What's notable about this particular ship? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where User:Andrew Davidson gets the idea that proof of existence is all that is needed to satisfy the notability guidelines. There is no way that I can see of reading any of the notability guidelines as saying that. On the contrary, the whole reason why we have notability guidelines is that we don't accept articles on just anything which exists: if we did, there would be no need for pages full of information about what subjects are acceptable and what aren't. (More detailed coverage of this issue is at Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I wrote was "The sources confirm that sources exist". It's the existence of sources which is the essence of our notability guideline. The nominator seems to think that notability is a matter of achievement, fame or importance. But it isn't; what we require are sources which cover the topic in detail. I have demonstrated that such sources exist and so the topic is notable per WP:N. Andrew D. (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. We're going to have a lot of articles if we make a page for every non notable private charter vessel. Laurdecl ^talk 05:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The vessel is notable. The number of pages we might have for such vessels is not a reason to delete – see WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew D. (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrew Davidson: Now that's there's reliable sources that indicate notability I'll change my vote, thanks. But as for WP:NOTPAPER see WP:NOTTOILETPAPER. Laurdecl ^talk 14:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as added sources clearly indicate notability. Laurdecl ^talk 14:23, 10 January 2017 (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.