Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagliacci (joke format)

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 Sad clown paradox. Sandstein 08:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pagliacci (joke format)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:WWIN, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH // Timothy :: talk 07:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be an attempt to improve the page John Robertson (comedian) which was created by the same SPA. I've nominated Robertson's own page for deletion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic is notable – see BBC or Irish Times, for example. It might be merged with some other page such as sad clown paradox and that might be best as it's told about others besides Pagliacci (and the page currently gets the Watchmen reference wrong). Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [1], [2], [3], [4] [5] Enormously famous joke format used all over the world.★Trekker (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the BBC History Extra and Huffington Post references demonstrate notability. I don't understand Dom Kaos' comment about improving the comedian's page: the comedian isn't linked from this page, or vice versa. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and [6] (book published by McFarland & Company) and [7] (article in journal published by Duke University Press). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Sad clown paradox. Neither the article nor the sources presented recognize this as a "joke format", rather it's just a joke that's been reused a number of times. Sources are not significant coverage about the joke format itself, but instead uses of the joke in the context of the sad clown paradox, an excellent place to mention this. Reywas92^Talk 07:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sad clown paradox. As stated by Reywas92, none of these sources actually discuss a "joke format", they discuss a singular joke that has been retold numerous times. Additionally, while the name used as the title of this article, "Pagliacci", gained prominence due to the version used in Watchmen, it has certainly not been the only name used for the joke over the years, so titling this article the "Pagliacci joke format" seems completely inaccurate. Problems with the current article aside, though, I agree with Andrew and Reywas92 that the actual main topic that all of these sources are actually discussing is the Sad clown paradox. That concept is the actual topic of all of these sources, and the joke is just being used in them to help illustrate it. Discussing the joke in that broader topic makes the most sense. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Pagliacci (joke): It has received some coverage. With reliable sources indicated above, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to delete & merge to Sad clown paradox per others' comments. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs the entire final section is about John Robertson (comedian), and the two pages were created by the same editor less than 17 hours apart. Maybe I'm being overly suspicious. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, now I see what you mean. Still, the "entire final section" is one sentence, and if Robertson isn't notable, then we can just take it out. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2020 (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.