Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate versions of the Joker


 * 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&rarr;Joker (comics). The question of whether or not to do a selective merge can be handled after the fact through cleanup of the content after merger. Though the main consensus is for merge and cleanup is a good idea, it's not part of the expressed consensus ... but I will nonetheless place a modified version of Template:cleanup-afd on the section arising from the merger to direct editors here to consider the cleanup commentary. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternate versions of the Joker

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A trivial list that could easily renamed "Non-notable appearances by the Joker". The content is not substantial enough to warrant it's own article. The article itself is a stub and most likely cannot be expanded beyond it's current state. The Filmaker 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it seems pretty standard in comic book articles to include information on alternate versions of the character. Presumably this was forked off from the main Joker article per WP:SUMMARY because of the size of that article. Not saying that I necessarily approve of the article but given other examples from Category:Alternate versions of what specifically is wrong with the concept of this article? Otto4711 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't exactly a valid argument that something should be kept. But you are neutral at the moment. The issue that the article is just a list of trivial appearances by the Joker. They are not affecting the grander scheme of things, so why are they worth mentioning? The Filmaker 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Joker. -- Jelly Soup 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back into the page on the joker as suggested above. This is an appropriate section of that article, but without further expansion, not likely to be of much use on its own.  In the comic book market, "alternate" versions of principles characters makes for a regular practice that has been itself the subject of substantial coverage.  Is it worth covering on its own?  No, I wouldn't say so in this case.  If there's some concerns wtih clutter on the Joker article, then Alternate versions of the Batman is far more sustainable on its own, and would be a reasonable place to discuss the Joker anyway.  The Joker doesn't exist without the Batman as far as I know.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact that most, if not all, of these examples are trivial cameos from one-shot comics. If it were merged back into the Joker article, any experienced editor that is half-way good at what he is doing would remove them after realizing that they are not notable enough for inclusion. The Filmaker 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And a hundred other editors might decide, no, actually it does merit inclusion. I see at least three editors here who feel it should be merged. However, that question is best settled either on the page about the Joker, or considering the wide applicability of the issue, on the Wikiproject Comics talk page.  Or in an RFC if you want to involve more people.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with the joker as previously mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G82490 (talk • contribs)
 * Selective Merge - The article, as it now stands, is unreferenced. As the nominator says, some of these probably trivial, so if sources can be found for notable examples of this list, it should be trimmed down to those, and these merged into the Joker (comics) article.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason while the article is unreferenced is that, at least at this point, the article features no analysis or commentary on the subjects and thus does not require references (as the references for plots of artistic work, is the work itself) per this quote from the Featured Article Director: "No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary. Raul654 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)" The Filmaker 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may for many lists and similar articles, the elements of this article DO contain commentary about the appearances; (e.g., history, the "silver age" appearances, information about inspiration, sequels, etc., etc.) and while this information indicates enough notability to be included in a selective merge, that's precisely the kind of thing for which you'd want references. ◄   Zahakiel   ►  20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Mkae it into one article -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.209.247 (talk • contribs).
 * 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.