Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doink the Clown

Doink the Clown was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the page.

Doink the Clown
Delete. Garners a non-noteworthy 2620 hits on Google. [[User:Radman1|Radman1 (talk)]] 00:47, Oct 18, 2004 (PST)
 * Right on the edge, but keep. A notable bit of pop culture. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:50, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2620 hits is non-noteworthy? This is a sarcastic listing&mdash;see nominating user's comments at Votes_for_deletion/PabloDraw, made immediately prior to this listing. Postdlf 07:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not a sarcastic listing. Also see Votes_for_deletion/Remorse_1981: 368 hits, Votes_for_deletion/Remorse_1981: 766 hits, and Votes_for_deletion/RaD_Man: 3460 hits.  According to the currently applied logic (and suspicious distribution), 3500 must be the highwater mark.
 * Keep. I don't see why web hits on google should be the measure of noteworthyness - for various reasons, some topics tend to get discuessed more than others on web pages, so it's hardly an unbiased test. I favour the "use your brain" approach, and my brain tells me this is an entry of minor fame, and thus should be kept. ShaneKing 08:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with ShaneKing that Google isn't everything.  One bias is the underrepresentation of all subjects from prehistory up until the explosive growth of the Web in the late 1990s.  I see that Doink was active in 1993, so this factor affects him.  Doink gets more Google hits than an Emperor of China, King Xiao of Zhou, even if you add in the hits for the alternate spelling "King Hsiao of Chou". JamesMLane 03:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Category:Professional wrestlers reveals, we have articles on a great many pro wrestlers. Community standards seem to be that they are acceptable encyclopedia topics. &mdash;Stormie 04:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems relevant enough. Andre ( talk )A| 14:16, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Carr 18:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (Agree with Stormie and ShaneKing). [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:47, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 19:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't remember if he was actually any good, but he did make a splash. - Lifefeed 19:38, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Legitimate article. And when will people learn that just because Google doesn't have something doesn't mean it isn't important. Does Google have an eyewitness account of the extinction of the dinosaurs? No, but that was sure important --Cynical 20:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: and if eyewitness account of the extinction of the dinosaurs youre telling me you'd vote to keep? The bellman 10:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment: No, because the article would not be truthful (therefore a violation of WP policy). My point was to illustrate that just because Google doesn't have something (after all it only indexes 3 or so billion out of about 20 billion pages) doesn't mean it isn't notable--Cynical 21:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Legit article.The bellman 10:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep Why single out this particular one. But such minor characters might well share a single entry and gain interest that way. --Wetman 10:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Cabalamat 21:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. What seems un-noteworthy now may easily be quite notable later. (the 1963 World Book Encyclopedia doesn't have even a small article on Lucille Ball, yet we have several articles as she is now so notable that the information about her and her work can't really be covered in one single article.) Clowns and people who famously dress as clowns and performers whose performance is considered clownish by clowns and any related info is welcome in the Clown constellation.  I'm adding Doink and Dink to the list of clowns on Clown and I encourage editors to expand Doink the Clown article.  If this will be deleted, please copy the text of this article to the discuss page for Clown and I'll be quite happy change this to a redirect, and merge it into the  clown constellation somehow, though I think it deserves it's own article however short. Pedant 22:30, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)