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.
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
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.
Reywas92Talk 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
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.