Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Quinn in other media

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Harley Quinn. This AfD could also be closed in other ways, but the point is that there is already a large overlap with Harley Quinn, and the consensus leaned towards that HQ's appearances don't necessitate a separate article. I'll leave it to editorial decisions what to merge and how it should be presented in the parent article. – sgeureka t•c 12:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn in other media

[edit]

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

Harley Quinn in other media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appearances of a comic book character in film, etc. This fancruft fails WP:LISTN. I get that this is a spin-off article of Harley Quinn#In other media, but it is not a worthwhile one, and would be removed as excessive detail if it were still in the source article. For very popular comics characters with dozens or hundreds of appearances, Wikipedia should not attempt to list all appearances. Doing so verges on WP:IINFO and is of no interest to any but the most devoted of fans. Fan wikis are better suited for such purposes. Our article about the character should instead provide a broad overview of appearances and highlight the most important appearances. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harley Quinn. Instead of deleting this content, consider condensing it into a table that simply lists works (or groups of works) by publisher and medium. It's not necessary to list detailed plot and character information from each of Quinn's appearances in video games, movies, etc. (that information, if it differs from her general bio from Batman: The Animated Series, should be captured in the articles for those separate games, movies, etc. and can be just briefly referenced here). I appreciate what the author was trying to do here but I don't think that it is necessary to maintain this level of wp:fancruft. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just pure fancruft and the amount of detail in this article is extremely trivial in nature, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most of these cameo appearances are not necessary to mention anywhere besides her Wikia page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obstensive Keep Merge per Masem - When characters are adapted into other media, they are usually reinterpreted, adapted, and portrayed by multiple different actors. And Sandstein, we do list every appearance except for irrelevant minor appearances (such as a cameo) and trivial non-appearances (such as a mentioning). If you can fit all of the character's relevant appearances into the main article at a reasonable length, I will change my vote to delete. If not, there is no basis for a deletion. "In other media" sections get spun off into separate articles when they reach a certain length.
What I will say is that (in general) these deletion spammings (especially those of TTN) are getting out of hand, and are beginning to border on disruption. If certain users have an issue with how the WikiProject operates, they need to open a larger discussion instead of making an excessive amount of WP:POINTy deletion nominations. In fact, there actually have been such discussions where users have claimed that there is some secret ownership cabal at WP:COMICS, so the deletion spammings are really just a way to bypass the discussion without having to worry about changing consensus. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic talk between Darkknight2149 and TTN about how Wikipedia works. – sgeureka t•c 14:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • You act as if project permission is needed to nominate vast swathes of articles that fail multiple policies and guidelines. You act as if there is some affront to not dealing with a project directly over the articles related to the project. That is a claim of ownership. I have absolutely zero faith such a project can do anything when many of these articles have been sitting for literally 14 years at this point. Any attempt at self-cleanup seems to have died right out of the gate. Look at the Marvel and DC character lists and their complete lack of any organization. Look at all the various merged characters brought back by people like Rtkat3 out of complete ignorance of how WP:N and WP:WAF work. Look at the several people who seem angry at the mere fact that I'd nominate some of these articles even before there is any discussion on Wikipedia-defined Notability. There is no working with such a mishmash of cloistered people. It's not like there aren't some reasonable voices, but they're definitely drowned out. TTN (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is content ownership. Whether or not you have faith in the community is irrelevant. If you want change, you have to propose it, raise your concerns, and discuss it like everyone else, instead of throwing consensus out the window and trying to force your point of view. And as previously mentioned, the matter of there being an "ownership" cabal at WP:COMICS has been hotly discussed multiple times in the past, so this really is you taking matters into your own hands. There have even been instances in these nominations where users have pointed you to specific guidelines/conventions that you have chosen to ignore on the basis of "I don't like that!". At the Goblin nomination, when mistakes in your nomination were pointed out to you, you tried to dance around it instead of admitting your mistake. It was also you who tried to push the onus onto me to open a discussion for you, so your ridiculous WP:GAMEing of WP:OWN is hypocritical as hell. You boldly tried to change the WikiProject through mass deletion nominations. At this point, more than one user has expressed their exasperation with this behaviour and your justifications have been ridiculous and disruptive. If this continues, action will likely be taken against you. DarkKnight2149 01:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony is that TTN only has to "deletion spam", in the words of DarkKnight, because comic book fans remove PRODs offhand no matter how fancrufty and non-notable the content is, which in itself is disruptive editing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy, you just aren't going to drop that you lost that argument, are you? You keep mentioning changes or gaining consensus. What exactly am I doing that differs from consensus? Is there a consensus that non-notable articles should exist? That's not a consensus a project can make. Projects can decide how to best organize content and act as a place of easy communal discussion. They don't get to override site-wide consensus on Notability. You are clearly trying to assert project dominance in a space where it doesn't exist. Thus you are claiming ownership. I in no way believe my pace is anywhere near a level of disruption, especially where these articles clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's that exact same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality you displayed earlier. I'm about to drop a message on your most recent deletion nomination informing everyone of the situation. So far, you have displayed tendencies of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:POINT, WP:GAMEing, WP:ASPERSION, WP:INCIVILITY, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. What you are doing is trying to circumvent discussion by finding as many WP:COMICS articles as you can, scrolling down to the references section, and then automatically tagging them for deletion without doing any research into topic, or looking into whether or not sources exist, all to push your point of view and protest the project in a disruptive manner. Already at the Goblin nomination, two separate editors have supported a deletion on the basis of the erroneous deletion rationale that you made. And when confronted about making a false claim or a mistake, you either try to dance around it or double-down on it. When someone presents third party sources or cites a specific guideline to you (such as WP:LISTN or WP:NCOMIC), you ignore it on the basis of "I don't like it". The subject of change and potential ownership at WP:COMICS already has been discussed multiple times community-wide in the past, discussions that you are choosing to circumvent because you are afraid of opposition (as you yourself admitted). You were bold enough to spam deletion nominations. Now your behaviour has been contested by more than one editor. You need to either open a discussion at dispute resolution, WT:COMICS, or another appropriate venue. Telling you this isn't WP:OWN, it's WP:CONSENSUS. If you continue this disruption, you will be reported. DarkKnight2149 00:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More ownership nonsense. Just make your pointless report because I have no intention on catering to your nonsense. I am one of several editors in several spaces nominating things for deletion. You so far are the only person to try to turn this into a battleground by claiming that any change has to go through the great project cabal. This is OWN to a tee. Both PROD and AfD are community tools using outside consensus to determine lack of notability on a per article basis, and you have yet to explain what consensus I'm apparently trying to change. Again, I ask is there a local consensus keeping non-notable articles or something? I am not unilaterally mass redirecting. I am not going through changing established MoS items. This has nothing to do with your project or any internal consensus. TTN (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you have previously been told, it doesn't necessarily have to be at WT:COMICS. WP:DRN is a perfectly fine place to take it. You obviously have no idea what WP:OWN is, nor do you know what WP:CONSENSUS is. You do not get to circumvent discussion just because you are afraid that the community won't rule in your favour. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you also may want to take a good hard look at Wikipedia:There is no cabal and WP:STEWARDSHIP. If you think your mentality is remotely acceptable, I would suggest you ask around. Any administrator will tell you the exact same thing I am. DarkKnight2149 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can shout that to the high heavens, but you're still demanding the involvement of the project in something irrelevant to the project. If you want to have an internal discussion on how to deal with your low quality, non-notable articles, feel free. I don't need to be involved. You still have yet to point out what apparent consensus I'm even breaking. AfDing non-notable articles is pretty standard. You have an extreme bias issue in this discussion, especially claiming that I'm somehow making people !vote a certain way when they can use their own eyes to judge the content. You are not going to change my mind, so you can either make your RFC/ANI/discussion with an admin or just go about your business. TTN (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At no point have I expressed bias in this discussion. Without reaching, I dare you to substantiate this bias in a way that doesn't boil down to "He asked me to stop blindly and haphazardly spamming deletion nominations, and engage in dispute resolution! The BRD/consensus process is content ownership, because if I try to change how the topic of comics is handled on Wikipedia through discussion, a cabal of editors will DISAGREE with me!!" Something that actually has been discussed community-wide multiple times and that you are deliberately choosing to ignore, I might add. When you continue on, don't be surprised when you get hit with an ANI report. That's all there really is to say at this point. DarkKnight2149 01:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, word it in a way that completely ignores the repeated, explicit demands of project involvement. You take the time to slap me with two generic warnings like I'm a toddler, but you're not going to go through with it? You have been deeply biased in both discussions we've had, going for a fight right out of the gate and vaguely hand-waving at some supposed consensus I've breached but refuse to disclose. You purposefully pinged me to this unrelated discussion just to continue a prior argument. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure my started AfDs since I've returned this year are likely at 90%+ in favor of my position, so I'm quite confident that nothing I'm doing can be considered disruptive outside of my supposed invasion of "your" article space. TTN (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a battleground to host arguments. I initially informed you of an objectively false claim that you used as a basis for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics) and expressed my concern after looking through the vast number of articles you were nominating. You repeatedly doubled down on it and downplayed it instead of admitting your mistake. It's the way that you have behaved and justified yourself since then that has led to this moment. You have selectively ignored what I have been telling you to try and "win" some imaginary argument. You need to listen to other editors. Given how long you have been on Wikipedia, it amazes me that you don't see any problems with what you are saying, or the way you are acting. You have also haven't provided any evidence of "bias" on my part, and it seems as though you desperately need to read through WP:TINC, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:Dispute Resolution, WP:OWN, WP:GAME, WP:LAWYER, WP:WIN, and WP:BRD. You seem completely unable to accept when you are wrong, or that Wikipedia isn't your way or the highway. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Says the person who pinged me in a completely unrelated AfD by another user for the purpose of continuing an argument. You're the only one preaching, so it's not "listen to other editors." It's "listen to you." This is your particular biased point of view because you're upset that I'm doing something of which you disapprove in "your" space. That you keep bringing up my "mistake" (which again, you're the only one parroting it) like it's the biggest golden gun in the world is quite telling. TTN (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact juvenile WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour I was referring to. And still, you provide zero evidence of bias. I hope you understand that the incivility and WP:Casting aspersions alone is enough reason for me to file a report, let alone everything else. There is no "argument" to "win". The sooner you figure this out, the better.
"You're the only one preaching, so it's not 'listen to other editors.' It's 'listen to you.'" And this would fall under "selectively ignoring what I have been telling you", not to mention WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then file it. Stop acting like you have me over a pit and just do it if you really believe your position is so strong. It's going to be a whole lot of nothing. TTN (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Summary style is king. Rather than a proper fork article, this is pure, unchecked bloat. There should be sections that discuss the most important roles and the character's impact in those roles. I could certainly see comic characters possibly having scholarly articles built entirely on their depictions in various media through proper sourcing, but this is not currently in such a state. TTN (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More comic book fancruft. Cjhard (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - After Gonnym's vote below and doing some major clean up of the article, I'm still a little in two minds about the article. I don't think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics#Alternate_versions_of_characters applies as strongly as Gonnym does, as the guideline is about alternate versions of a character, whereas this refers to every appearance of the character in non-comic book media. However, I think the article types are similar enough that the guideline is helpful in this case. I think there's a likelihood that cleanup to the point required could lead to it needing to be merged into the main article, but that remains to be seen. Cjhard (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid list that has a set criteria for inclusion and has enough sources for a start level list article. This list could be merged to the parent article, but it would just pointlessly make that article larger and put undue weight to this section, over the general article. Also, to all the deletionists here, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics#Alternate_versions_of_characters which is a guideline which this list follows. Seems like what we got here is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS posse going for the backdoor way, instead of trying to get the larger community consensus to actually change the guideline. Just a note to any admin closing this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's clearly in reference to a full character offshoot that meets the proper standards of a Wikipedia article, not an unending list of plot summaries. There's even a sentence that seems against this kind of thing: "Such appearance lists or indexes fall under Wikipedia's concept of a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information." While that is directly talking about an extensive comic publication history, these other media appearances are no different. TTN (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Harley Quinn is notable, there's no need to list every time she appeared somewhere. JIP | Talk 11:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Harley Quinn. I feel 50% of this list is already documented in that article, and it is a matter of just organizing the rest for more minor/one-off appearances (which must be sourced for this types of appearances, where it is not obvious to a regular viewer/reader/player). --Masem (t) 02:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid spin off article for valid content that wouldn't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 05:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Main Harley Quinn page is 33k of readable prose. At best, this list is 30k - but as I pointed out, about 50% of it duplicates what's in Appearances already. Combined is well under the SIZE issue. --Masem (t) 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a rough start, it looks like there might be a path forward... I propose keeping with a Merge tag for now while someone Sandboxes the merge for discussion without forcing the merge to be carried out if said sandbox doesn't truly seem like it fits. Not sure what to put in bold there as my !vote, but I'm not sure who will actually do it, either. -2pou (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harley_Quinn_in_other_media&oldid=931673669"