Deletion of Joker (character)

Comment: I think in most cases the "(comics)" disambiguation is fine for most comic book characters. I also think that the (comics) disambiguation is fine for characters that originated in comics but have become popular in other forms of media outside of comics. Just because a character has become popular outside of comics does not mean that the comics version is not independently notable. However, I am not opposed to creating a separate set index article linking to multiple versions or appearances of the same character. I am against rewriting existing articles to force the creation of a hodgepodge of different versions while not accounting for ,  and general confusion to the reader. I believe this was done at Magneto (comics) awhile back and was thankfully reverted. Feel free to respond, just know that I will more than likely not respond back as I do not want nor have the time to engage in a lengthy discussion on this topic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: per Curly Turkey, but merge the contents of Joker (comics) into this one. There isn't enough distinct material for two separate articles (p.s. which actually I think is Darknight2149's point). For popular characters that are widely known in several media, when it has been discussed (see Talk:Wolverine_(character)#Requested_move|Wolverine for example), the overall consensus per  is to have (character) for the main encyclopedic article about the fictional person (irrespective of its origin in comics), and if there's enough material, a subsidiary (comics) or (comic book) article for the timeline of appearances in that form. Having (comics) as the parenthetical disambiguator is discouraged per , as it doesn't accurately describe the scope of the topic if the character is popular in other media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:PRECISION||WP:TITLE)

Comment: Darkknight2149 has ed a large number of sympathetic editors. I have https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=759057925&oldid=759000892 reported it. The very sudden appearance of a large number of "me toos" should be read in that light
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: and there should be repercussions for Darkknight2149's ing of so many sympathetic editors.  I've https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=759057925&oldid=759000892 reported it.The Joker (comics) article focuses almost exclusively on the character's appearances in comics. Semantically, a ''character'' cannot be a subset of that characters ''appearances in medium X''.  A character's appearances are a subset of the character.When a character appears primarily in one medium, a "XXX (character)" article will inevitably be primarily about the character's appearances in that medium, per WP:WEIGHT.  Per WP:WEIGHT, Joker has appeared prominently in numerous media (film, TV, animation) and is best known to the general public through ''these appearances''—a film such as ''The Dark Knight (film)|The Dark Knight'' grossed ''more than double the entire comic book industry'' for 2008.Chances are ''extremely high'' that anyone doing a search for "Joker (character)" will be doing so after watching, say, ''Sucicide Squad (film)|Sucicide Squad''—most of these viewers have never read the comic books, which have been selling around {{val|100000}} copies per issue for ''years'' now.The solution is simple: the article that focuses on the appearances of the character in comics should be titled something like Joker in comics, while the base article about the character ''in general'' should be at Joker (character), so readers will find what they want without confusion.WP:COMICS has a long history of confusing characters with their comics appearances, and used to have this stuff baked into its MoS page, until the wider community overturned it Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation|here.  This request is another attempt to overturn community consensus, and is highly disruptive.  This has been an ongoing problem with WP:COMICS, and it needs to be put to an end
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: per , , , and  (which, ironically, should probably be merged). The Joker (comics) article, which is already sprawling, is entirely about the comic book version(s) of the character with passing mentions of the others, while the article under discussion here is about the character in general, and branches out with {{tl|Main}} to the comic book character article where needed, then presents a whole lot more information, about the TV series and film versions, among others (some of which are also potential stand-alone articles).  This is standard operating procedure when a multi-genre/multi-medium/multi-continuity fictional character article becomes long and unwieldy; we break it up into narrower presentations and connect them with a summary-style article. We do the same thing with franchises and works in them, TV series and their seasons and notable episodes, bands and their albums and singles, etc., etc.A similar approach should be taken with Batman and other such characters.  It seems that in many cases we have what should be, e.g., Batman (comics) at Batman, covering nothing but the comics in any detail, but not written in  style and making it hard for people to find the articles on the TV, film, etc., versions of the character, which are often what they're looking for (especially with regard to subjects of major motion picture franchises – the average WP readers probably knows more about and wants to know more about the filmic Batman and Joker than the comics ones).  The title Batman (with a redir from Batman (character) should go to a summary-style article on the character as a whole, split into concise sections that summarize and link with hatnotes to the main articles on the rather different Batman characters in various media/continuities.  The approach taken at Joker (character) is a good model and much better serves our reader needs than WikiProject Comics's controlling behavior toward treating the comics version of a character as somehow automatically the  topic, then minimizing navigability to related non-comics articles.  (I say that as someone with a collection of 15,000+ comics; I have nothing against the medium, only against / tendencies of wikiprojects. I've started plenty of wikiprojects, too, and have nothing against them, just against wiki-territorialism
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY||WP:SPINOUT||WP:SPINOFF||WP:SPLIT||WP:PRIMARY||WP:OWN||WP:VESTED)

Comment: Me, I was playing with some poker chips yesterday that had the Joker on.  The character has a significant reach into many media now.  Organising our coverage of such complexity is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per .  Per , local "regulations" have little weight in this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:NOTBURO)