Deletion of List of jesters

Comment: The page looks more like a  page. Maybe rename to List of jesters pre-1900 to see if we can include only real, human jesters
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB)

Comment: agree with Cola above and further, wonder if this is not more of a  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM)

Comment: The article satisfies , 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  and is fine under . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:LISTPURP||WP:CLN)