Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klopman diamond (3rd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  05:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Klopman diamond
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The current sources in the article are: A wayback link to Mark Evanier's personal blog, a dead link to a newspaper article that apparently just reprinted the joke, a review of an album containing a reference to the joke, two dead YouTube links, and a jokebook. While there are multiple hits on Google Books, all of them are either jokebooks that just reprint the joke, or works of fiction that use the joke. Not a single one of them discusses the joke's history or origins. Compare the sources in bar joke, which extensively discuss the earliest known origins of it, the common setup, and use literary sources on humor to expound on why the joke is such a standard. Similarly, every result on Newspapers.com was either just a reprint of the joke, or an episode title with "Klopman" in it. The first AFD was kept mostly per WP:ITEXISTS ("it existed before Mark Evanier wrote it into Garfield and Friends, therefore it's notable"). The two books cited as reasons to keep in the first AFD are one that only mentions it in passing, and one that just reprints the joke without commenting on it. The second AFD was kept per the now-404 newspaper article which I am now entirely unable to locate. These were in 2008 and 2010, and surely consensus has changed by now given that the state of sourcing has not improved. Also apropos of nothing, this article is a complete WP:ORPHAN and has been since creation. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, in particular, WP:SIGCOV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. While this particular article is not overwhelmingly important, the reference has appeared in enough places to warrant some sort of coverage. This is an example of the ongoing efforts to decimate our popular culture coverage through AfDs like this one, which in my view have no value. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing the WP:GNG due to insufficient coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - As stated by the nomination, while searches bring up plenty of hits from joke books and the like that simply retell the joke, there are no sources that actually provide any significant coverage about either the joke or the fictional object that is the focus of it. So, it is a failure of the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.