Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jesters

:{{la|List of jesters}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_jesters Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of jesters}})

Completing nomination for User:Robynthehode. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

:On second thought, I've commented below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for this page to be deleted to be able to clean up the various pages on Jesters. The 'list of jesters' page is now superfluous to requirements as its information is now either on the Jester - disambiguation page or will be moved into a rewritten Jester main article. Specifically the list of current jesters and list of historical jesters will be moved to the main page. The main jester article should be an article about the history of jesters and the current jesters who perform this form of entertainment. No other listings should be in the main article (such as mention of sports teams called 'The Jesters' or lists of comic or video characters called 'The Jester'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 October 2012‎ (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't it be better to edit the jester article and then ask for this to be deleted? Or merge this into the main jester article, so as to preserve its revision history? I don't see how deleting it now can be justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - agree with Cola above and further, wonder if this is not more of a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem? Seems more about content quality / quantity / location than whether or not the article should fundamentally exist or not. Those are valid concerns but I wonder if we're dealing with step 10 before looking at 1-9...? Stalwart111 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just to give all an update. I have moved all material from the page 'list of jesters' either to Jesters - disambiguation or into the main article. Therefore the 'list of jesters' page really is superfluous. I have also cleaned up all duplicates of material that were on both the 'lists of jesters' page and also in the ambiguation page. While I am new to editing I cannot see any logical reason to keep a page that is now duplicating information elsewhere. The removal of 'list of jesters' also makes the number of jester themed pages more compact and understandable Robynthehode (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

::If the article Jester now contains a "List of Jesters", then the simplest path would be to redirect List of jesters to Jester#List of jesters or some such. In that way, the edit history for the list of jesters is preserved - and preserving the history is required by the licensing under which Wikipedia operates. If the content is kept, the history should be as well - and a redirect would do that. While I agree with Colapeninsula that a proper merge (which includes the history) would be best, a redirect would also be a workable option. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

:::This assumes, of course, that there is such a consensus - Best to discuss such a merge before actually merging. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy close—it's clear that this is not an issue for AFD, but rather normal editing and discussion to take care of. If ultimately all of the content is moved elsewhere, then redirecting to Jester seems like a good option. Outright deletion is off the table given that, if not merged, this is an obvious complement to :Category:Jesters per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• :Not every category automatically gets an accompanying list article; that is a gross misreading of WP:CLN. ThemFromSpace 16:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• ::Not really; see also WP:LISTPURP, noting that navigation between related notable topics (as lists that parallel categories necessarily allow for) are one of the main purposes of lists. Unless there is a good reason not to have a list specific to the problems of the list format (a kind of argument not advanced here), we do presume that lists are valid where categories are, subject only to whether it could readily be merged somewhere (we might tolerate a one-member category if part of an overall structure, but a one-member list would not be maintained separately). postdlf (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• :::Lists and categories are not 100% duplicative, thinking such is a mistake. Lists are encyclopedia articles, categories aren't. As encyclopedia articles, lists are subject to different policies and restrictions than categories. Categories and lists both aid in navigation, but lists need to do more than just that. Inappropriate lists are one of the sloppiest content areas on Wikipedia and its the category=list mentality that prevents this area of weakness from being properly addressed. ThemFromSpace 17:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• ::::What you are basically saying is you want current practice and guidelines to change, as lists don't need to do more than categories as far as navigation goes. They can do more, by being annotated and providing alternative means of organization other than alphabetical, but simply duplicating a category is not enough to delete it, as is stated in WP:NOTDUP. If you're thinking of WP:LISTN, that has been widely acknowledged as misstating practice (by omission or improper emphasis at the very least), though we haven't fixed it yet (see this discussion and any number of AFDs rejecting failure to comply with LISTN as sufficient alone for deletion). postdlf (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• :::::LISTN is a critical guideline that preserves the integrity of our list articles. Currently it is the saving grace of our list-related policy and practice. Lists have always needed to do more than categories that just reflect our internal structure; they have always needed to say (or at least imply) something encyclopedic. This has been the case since I joined in 2008. Muddying the waters between lists and categories will only have negative effects down the road; when the two become indecipherable and purely duplicative, there will be no need to make any differentiation at all. ThemFromSpace 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up This needs trimmed quite a bit, perhaps with a limitation of bluelinks. But the list is appropriate, not because there is a corresponding category, but because the list itself is an encyclopedic topic. With cleanup, citations (to the term jester, so there is no OR), and expansion, this could be a great list. ThemFromSpace 16:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Can someone in simple terms (because I'm new to editing) please explain why my request for deletion is not as straightforward as I thought.

Point 1 - Jester article is / was a mess with various inclusions of information that is / was duplicated in 'List of Jesters'

Point 2 - Disambiguation page for 'Jesters' is / was a mess, again without clarity of what should be excluded from the 'Jester' article and duplication with information in 'List of Jesters'

Point 3 - The comments above are helpful to me. However some people seem to me to have missed the point of my attempt to improve ALL the articles relating to jesters. It is my intention to make the whole subject clearer and to edit ALL pages that relate to the subject of jesters (but also all 'FOOLS' such as clowns, buffoons, shakesperean fools etc.

Maybe I should have checked about the conditions for merging an article rather than asking for deletion as that is what I have essentially done with the information from 'List of Jesters' to Disambiguation 'Jesters' and the main 'Jester' article.

I would like to reiterate my reasons for what I am trying to do:

The 'Jester' article should be about the history of 'Jesters', and the modern day counterparts. Jesters were and are live entertainers. All other references to 'Jesters' whether literary, sport, games, commercial etc should be elsewhere with appropriate links between articles.

Or am I missing something? Robynthehode (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

:The problem is you're in the wrong place. AFD produces binding results (albeit not permanent ones), typically to delete content outright for nonfixable problems. It is not for cleaning up an article or set of articles; before anyone starts an AFD, they should consider alternatives to deletion, with the expectation that valid content be preserved. Everything you're proposing is a matter for normal editing and discussion, particularly since you're talking about changes to two other pages that are separate from the one you've listed here.

If you had a problem just editing those three pages by yourself by being bold, and then leaving this as a redirect once you had merged its content somewhere, then you should have made your proposal on an article talk page, or on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject. Regarding the content changes you want to make, consider a "jesters in fiction" or "jesters in popular culture" section, whether in this list or in jester, to separate those from historic jesters. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The page looks more like a WP:DAB page. Maybe rename to List of jesters pre-1900 to see if we can include only real, human jesters. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and fix: The article satisfies WP:LISTN, as jesters have clearly been treated in reliable sources as a group, i.e. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1rnfAAAAMAAJ&q=jesters&dq=jesters&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G3OHUJ-9FYqi0QXJk4HABA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK in this book]. It also satisfies WP:LISTPURP and is fine under WP:CLN. I haven't seen any compelling arguments to the contrary above. It may need some work, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. --Batard0 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2012 (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.