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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willie and Joe

[edit]

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

This article is needless reduplication of material found in Bill Mauldin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

Comment: I fixed this AfD which was incorrectly formatted, unsigned and untranscluded. Cavarrone 19:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: invalid and inaccurate rationale for deletion as there is no "duplication of material", just a legitimate, brand new spinout article and a long overdue deepening of the popular Mauldin's comic strip. Also, there is an obvious lack of WP:BEFORE, as Google Books alone shows a high potential of expansion for the article (which was created just a few hours ago), including an extended entry in Routledge's World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia, an indepht 40 pages analysis in The Comic Art of War: A Critical Study of Military Cartoons, 1805-2014 by Christina M. Knopf (McFarland) or ten pages about the comics in Myth and the Greatest Generation: A Social History of Americans in World War II by Kenneth Rose. Cavarrone 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia that is not inherent to an article about the author himself. Since the wartime articles were such a significant part of Mauldin's work, creting a separte article is both unnecessary and undesirable, since it increased, needlessly, the possibility of POV forks. Anmccaff (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just vote once. Cavarrone 19:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect - belongs in Bill Mauldin. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not less than Divine Comedy belongs in Dante Alighieri, should we delete and redirect it? Please explain why Willie and Joe is non-notable, AfD is not a vote. Cavarrone 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Divine Comedy has many aspects to which Allegheri is but a footnote...and vice versa. On the other hand, what in this stublet that is worthwhile would not belong in an article on Mauldin? Let's review some differences:

The Comedy has existed independently from its creator for about 700 years, with trails of influences over centuries, continents, and cultures, some of them completely opaque to later readers and artists. Bill Mauldin died a dozen years ago.
The Comedy is a work, not contained characters. This is a bit like making an article called the Narrator and Virgil.
The contained characters are not essential to the work. Mauldin's best stuff does not depend on them, and often does not even contain them.
Dante-the-Narrator and Virgil are consistent characters throughout. Willie-the-early-image's character became Joe-the-later's characterAnmccaff (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you are wasting your energy here, as noone thinks Willie and Joe is remotely comparable to the Divine Comedy... I was just commenting about the sillogism "a work A belongs to its author B", which is something obvious but hardly a valid rationale for deleting (or for keeping) something. We delete articles just if they are NON-NOTABLE (see WP:N and WP:GNG), including comics created 50, 10 or 2 years ago. And I doubt that a comic strip which attracted academic analysis and which has entries on several printed encyclopedias fails our notability guidelines. Cavarrone 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Little energy is required, and you've just conceded that your comparison was overblown, and that it proves nothing, one way or the other.
Next, the mere fact that something is notable does not, in itself, justify a separate article, although the opposite insures it does not. Necessary, but not sufficient. We do not have a separate Abott (1/2 comedic duo) article, although he is as essential as Costello.
Finally, the more discussion, the more ideas that decisions are based on surface; you appear to believe that there was a "comic strip" called "Willie and Joe", for instance. Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We do not have a separate Abott (1/2 comedic duo) article, although he is as essential as Costello." Lol, I suspect you ignore we have both standalone Bud Abbott and Lou Costello articles! And again, my comparison was intentionally and obviously overblown, and I'd say it was very useful as to show how the argument "hey, Willie and Joe belongs to Bill Mauldin, he is its author, so let's delete it" was a nonsense argument, as long as we have thousand of separate articles for notable authors and for their notable works. And as long as you seems to agree Willie and Joe is notable, I still wonder why we are here... I am just desperately waiting for a decent deletion rationale based on a policy or a guideline... Cavarrone 23:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've long felt that those who LOL generally have something risable constantly at hand; you are doing nothing to disabuse me of this. Of course there could be a separate article for the actual humans, as well as as one for the duo act. Yet there need not be; cf. The Andrews Sisters. It depends on how intimately the details are intertwined. Looking for a brainless cookbook way of judging this is, well, brainless. The official policies atWP:DEL-REASON reflect situations where one need not think, when deletion is the only option. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Willie and Joe are iconic characters, sufficiently notable to have their own article. Significant coverage in real-world sources, including an ppearances on the cover of Time (magazine) gives them notability in their own right, per WP:NCHAR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you linked to there is is a "dormant proposal", not any type of policy. More importantly, how do you think that retaining this will improve the encyclopedia -is there anything that should bein it that shouldn't be in the Mauldin article, and vice versa? If the answer is no, than it is nothing except an opportunity for bad research and editing, as it is now. Anmccaff (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes. This is ample material to create a featured article on Willie and Joe. The Maudlin article should be about the artist, not his characters. Note the difference between the article on Bob Kane and the one on Batman. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find this far more compelling if cartoonists risked life answering desperate summonses from public officials, delivered by images projected on clouds by searchlights. To put it another way, you are comparing fantasy with something closer to reportage. Anmccaff (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is obviously a notable topic and it has just been nominated because of disagreement about a redirect. That's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "disagreement about a redirect" did you see? Aside from the essential one, about whether a redirect or a POV fork was more desirable? Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What sort of "ordinary editing" would you see fixing this?Anmccaff (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Artw (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't it, instead of a piece that only departs from the Mauldin article in misinformation or commercial promotion? I think that says something. Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This comics series is not just some footnote in one artist's life. It ran for many years. Many US soldiers during World War Two have enjoyed it, could relate to it, have drawn inspiration from it to carry on their duty. It was once popular enough to inspire two Hollywood movies. It had both notable admirers (Eisenhower) as well as opponents (Patton) in the US army who had very strong opinions about the content of the comic. "Willie and Joe" furthermore has received academic praise, praise from fellow comics artists, is still being republished in collectors' books, proving that there is still interest in this comic strip to this day. It is mentioned in various comics encyclopedia as one of the most notable and groundbreaking war comics. It deserves its own article on this site as it is definitely more important than a majority of comics series who also have their own article, and who, by comparison, have made less of an impact on popular culture than this series. - User:Kjell Knudde (4:18) 25/10/2015 (CET).

Again, this strikes me as precisely why this article is a bad idea; POV fork, and associated inaccuracy. There was no "comics series" called "Willie and Joe." It did not exist at all. Mauldin drew cartoons often, but by no means always, featuring these two stock characters for "the duration", and a year or so of demobilization. I suppose that's many years, by some measures. The two "hollywood movies" were unmitigated crap, which Mauldin explicitly rejected. Had neither Willie nor Joe been drawn, Patton would still have scanned Mauldin's output with a gimlet eye. Mauldin never drew, that I am aware of, a -single- "comic strip." Ever. He was a single-panel man. The fact that crap is often given its own article by fanboys is no justification for needless articles, even about good subjects. Anmccaff (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of adaptations is not of issue here. Thousands of bad movies, TV shows, novels, comics,... have their own article on Wikipedia. Also, if having bad movie adaptations were a criterium for not giving a comic strip, comic series or gag cartoon series (or whatever you want to call it) its own article then we could delete a lot of articles. - User:Kjell Knudde 26 October 2015 (CET)

The article is not about the comic strip, it is about the characters. Similar to the way that Dragon Lady has an article separate from Terry and the Pirates, which in turn is separate from Milton Caniff. Willie and Joe are best covered together, as they swapped identities early in the piece. The article could say a lot more about them (like, most readers will want to know which is Willie and which is Joe). Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that some want to see an article about the characters - although you'll note that several seem to mistakenly believe there was a "comic strip" called "Willy and Joe." The question is whether separating them is the best way to handle it, something that can't be discussed by citing rules and policies, but only by making an informed decision about whether that is needed and useful. Both items you mentioned here, for instance, the respective identities over time, belong at least as much in the artist's article; when two articles overlap almost completely, keeping both is a Bad Thing. Anmccaff (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2015 (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.