Talk:Clark Kent

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After reviewing the discussion, I see strong points from both sides. The issues that come about in favour of merging is that both Clark Kent and Superman are the same character - true, but in two very differenct contexts. Also, there is a worry that the information is not verifiable, the non varifiable information should be discussed and removed from the article if not independant sources can be found. Against the merge, it's noted that Clark Kent was actually merged out of the Superman article in the first place because the section was growing too big - it's highly likely therefore that this would happen again. They also state that although Kent and Superman are the same people, they are in fact two very different characters. I appreciate both sides arguements here and the result of this discussion is that there is no consensus for the merge to take place. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• NO. Superman is the hero. Clark Kent is the man behind the mask —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.196.158 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. 'This article should be merged into Superman as the other superheroe articles I have looked at discuss the 'man behind the mask' in the same article, not in two separate ones. asyndeton 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Though I'll admit there is some truth to the statement repetead in past discussions by "non-mergists" that the words "Clark Kent" conjure up images of a mild-mannered reporter rather than "mentally redirecting" to Superman, I think the articles should be merged. Several sections in the Superman article such as "Personality", "Literary analysis" and "Supporting cast" have several scattered comments about Clark Kent which come from cited scholarly research. The Clark Kent article, on the other hand, is full of original research, has a trivia section, only cites three comics, has section which repeats information already in the "Superman in other media" article, and is mostly composed of some editors' personal unverifiable reflection on "Who is the real personality?". I loathe all discussions on that subject. As Jules Feiffer argues, Clark Kent might just be the most fundamental aspect of Superman. Never has Clark Kent been an intrinsically different person than Superman. While things such as "Gee, Lois, did I miss Superman again?" have always been an act, the Clark Kent ruse has always been mantained through secrecy more than it has been mantained through deceit (and the instances in which it is mantained through blatant deceit, such as in stories printed in Superman's Girlfriend, Lois Lane, there is no sign of separate personalities. Rather, Kent demonstrates he's every bit as eccentric and fradulent as the Silver Age version of his costumed alter ego). There's has never been a period in Superman's history in which every single word coming out of Clark Kent's mouth were things he'd never say as Superman. Nor has Kent always had the same behaviour. It has changed as much as Superman's modus operandi. Siegel's Kent was assertive, yet a bit cowardly. Byrne's Kent was agressive, yet sensitive. The Johns/Busiek Kent is strong-willed, yet filled with self-doubt. In the end, Clark Kent is an aspect of Superman's personality which pops out every now and then on a discussion regarding him (as seen in the Superman article), but it's not a distinct personality worthy of being considered separately (lack of mental redirects nonwithstanding). "Clark Kent" should redirect to Superman, and the (very) small amount of relevant information in this article should be moved to the "Personality and character" section of the mostly cited "Superman character and cast" article. --Ace ETP 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom and it's the same case as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Peter Parker/Spider-Man. They're just superheroes wearing a costume. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• No! They are two different personalitys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claycrow (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, per Sesshomaru's explanation. CPitt76 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same, and they are also different personalities. Kent and Superman are one person, one article. --CmdrClow 02:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Leave separate. There is clearly enough information to justify its own article and the Superman article is big enough as it is. Also, "Clark Kent" is arguably the best known "secret identity" in comics history. --Maestro25 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree to a certain extent. Superman is already larger as an article than we normally like, and whilst Superman and Clark Kent are similar, I think there needs to be an overview article which discusses the contradictions and uniqueness of the character of Clark Kent, and its importance to the character of Superman and also to comic books. Hiding Talk 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge - iconically, the two are different. The usage of Clark Kent as a synonym for an Everyman (eee also Caspar Milquetoast), for example. And also see Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article series, for other reasons to not merge. - jc37 10:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: As has been mentioned with others, unlike other alter egoes, the name "Clark Kent" has become synonymous with "secret identity". While I do believe that this article is in desperate need of cleanup, a merger with the main Superman article would create larger problems. If anything, the article should either be deleted, merged into secret identity, or left alone. King Zeal 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Important Are you guys forgetting why this got its own article in the first place? Long time ago, section about Clark Kent became too big (I know because I read revision histories), so merging was decided since there was too much info. If we mix it into the Superman article, we COULD have the same problems as we did many many months ago. TheBlazikenMaster 14:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the solution to that problem would be simple; reduce the size of the Clark Kent section by not including every insignificant little detail. Right now, the Trivia section could go, since it shouldn't be there anyway, and the 'Which is the "real identity"?' could also go as it is completely unsourced and looks to me like nothing but speculation and OR - these two points damage quite badly the arguemnt 'there is enough information here to keep them separate'. The 'Smallville' section could also be moved to the Smallville page and we simply post a link to that page. I think this is the beginning of an adequate resolution to your problem.

Also, I don't see why Clark Kent and Superman are more deserving of separate articles than other superheroes. Please explain to me why, if you can say Clark Kent and Superman are iconically different as Kent is the 'everyman,' you can't say that Peter Parker is the 'every teenager'. Also, Clark Kent is no more synonymous with 'secret identity' than any other superhero who keeps his true identity a secret. asyndeton 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The "who is the real identity" section isn't completely OR. Hell, that very question actually came up in a very recent issue of the Superman comic, and there is still the Kill Bill scene in which Bill calls Clark Kent the "costume", the episode of Superman: The Animated Series in which Superman says "Clark Kent is who I am", and the episode of Lois & Clark in which he says "Clark is who I am. Superman is what I can do." Dismissing the entire section as OR just isn't appropiate, I think.King Zeal 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Clark Kent is no more synonymous with 'secret identity' than any other superhero who keeps his true identity a secret. - Patently false. Ichormosquito 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How exactly? Peter Parker has a genetic mutation that makes him stick to walls and shoot webbing from his wrists and he keeps that pretty damn secret. Bruce Banner turns into a green, destructive monster when he gets angry. He keeps that under wraps. asyndeton 11:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Superman's introduction in the radio and TV series included "...and who, disguised as Clark Kent...", which almost everyone, even non-comics fans, recognizes as part of the Superman mythology. Superman also has the distinction of being a hero whose Silver Age stories maintained a constant theme of having to defend his secret identity from snoops (namely Lois Lane). Peter Parker has almost never had to do so. And also, you're just flat out wrong about Bruce Banner. The fact that he is the Hulk is public knowledge. King Zeal 12:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, following Civil War, the public knows about Peter being Spider-Man. In fact, Jameson sues Parker over fraud. Anakinjmt 20:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - "Clark Kent" is a notable entity in and of itself. Ichormosquito 11:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Superman and Clark Kent are the same person, therefore should be in the same article. We should reduce the size of each so it fits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.182.40.236 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• no merge - Superman and Clark Kent are the same character. The articles focus is about the nature of secret identity, reflected in the most iconic character in comics. The article is a fine examination into this important apect of not only Superman, but the superheroes in general. The specifict Clark Kent/Superman relationship is utilized and referred to across genres and mediums and deserves mention. But such a discussion is too large for this article. I would encourage that a supporting character/cast disussion be started separately. 66.109.248.114 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge because the content at Clark Kent is not at all verifiable in terms of being published by reliable sources. It's all a plot summary, which isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. The regurgitation is unnecessary and does not delve into the character at all from an OOU perspective. Items like citing Birthright for Clark Kent using the Meisner method is completely in-universe and cannot apply to other portrayals of Clark Kent/Superman. Not to mention that they're both one and same, and the identities are intertwined. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support merge Comparible characters like Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker don;t have seperate articles. Anything that can't be merged into the main SUperman article could probably find a home at History of Superman, Alternate versions of Superman, or Superman (Kal-L). Also some information may be more usefule at Secret identity or Alter ego -- 69.182.73.240 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• No Merge - I can see the point, but the Superman page is already 232.94 KB. Adding Clark Kent would put it over 400 KB, and that seems like too big of an article. Granted, some of the 95 KB of the Clark Kent article would get lost (mainly things like the heading of the article and the sidebar listing first published, alias, etc.), but that still seems like a large article, and considering the current trend of the comics (at least up to Infinite Crisis, I don't know about afterwards), it would appear as though the two are, for the most part, separate identities, with only sharing a few characteristics (mainly beliefs, morals, etc). But, my biggest reason for saying no merge is simply the size of the merged article. If it can be trimmed down to being just over 300 KB, I wouldn't have that big of an issue with a merge. BTW, with whoever signed above, let me just say that it's doubtful that a Bruce Wayne or a Peter Parker article would be too different from Batman or Spider-Man.Anakinjmt 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that we cannot cut down the size of the Superman article. I'm sure it will be more challenging than other articles, since it is a featured article and we would want to preserve that status, but I'm still sure that it wouldn't be impossible. Maybe some of the information can be split into another article, and please don't say anything to the tune of that defeating the point of merging them, or just moved into another existing article. asyndeton 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, after looking over the article, a huge portion of the sections are summaries of other articles (they even list "See such-and-such-article for more info." Trimming down on even more doesn't seem too possible. The only sections that haven't been expanded into separate articles are Creation, Copyright Issues, Inspiring a Market, Merchandising, Literary Analysis, and Popularity, and frankly, none of those sections seems too big to demand their own article. Where exactly could you cut? Anakinjmt 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

comment: I was recently rewatching the Bryan Singer/Ken Burns special Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman, during which the discuss Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and the focus of Clark Kent as being different than Superman, and thus the novelty of using him as the primary focus of the show. There are distinctive aspects that do separate Clark from Superman, in addition to the size of the current Superman article, both which merit a no merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is already too long, just include a small Clark Kent stub in this article while keeping the bulk of the Clark Kent information in its own separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trademark123 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I've ummed and ahhed over this for a bit and the people arguing to keep this based on size (especially as this was split off from Superman) and on his being the best known secret identity probably got me to a weak oppose but there are enough cases of Kent not being Superman (or being significantly different) to further swing it to a solid oppose - in particular this and in some of the Elseworlds it is Clark Kent and not Superman - Superman: Last Son of Earth Clark Kent ends up on Krypton and becomes their Green Lantern. (Emperor 23:38, 26 October 2007

Whoa, nice. I'd forgotten about those cases of Clark Kent and not Superman. That should help for sure. Anakinjmt 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC))

• Don't Merge I agree with all that has been said. Its not just the length, but Kent is almost like a seperate character. Rhino131 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Clark Kent is not mearly Superman without a mask (or with glasses as the case may be) he is a seperate person. In addition, the two articles are huge! Merging them into one "super-article" (pardon the pun) would be a bad idea. It is better to keep them seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnred32 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided There is logic to them both. Clark and Superman are separate people and merging them into one article would be a bit much. I've read both articles and they are way to lengthy to be merged. On the other hand physically they are the same guy. If Clark were to be shot the bullets would bounce off. I guess I'll go with the flow on this wikipedia debate. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Lots of the info is just repeated across both articles anyway, and a lot more is just cruft that could (should) be harmlessly deleted. 79.68.37.172 00:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. 'Superman and Clark Kent are the same person so the pages should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.4.109 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong merge as Superman and Clark Kent are the same character. I'm saying this with Smallville in mind. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Smallville is just ONE version of Clark, and he's not even Superman yet in Smallville, so how do you know he'll act the same as Superman as he does as Clark Kent? Besides, the debate alone warrants the article, I think. They will share similarities, sure, because the same being portrays both, but the debate along warrants the Clark Kent article. And, again, the Superman article would be way too long. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What I think this article simply needs is references to Clark Kent being the penultimate example of a "secret identity" or a foppish facade. I'm pretty sure that if the Wikipedia community pools its heads together, we can find MORE than enough examples. King Zeal (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Should this discussion close as soon as this year does? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It was stated before. The Superman article is really too big as is. Adding Clark Kent to it would make it bigger than it really has to be. And I agree with TheBlazikenMaster. This really should be concluded by the end of the year. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 06:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - If it was done for Bruce Wayne and Batman, I don't see the problem here. I can't fathom how having a separate article could benifit in any way more than merging them together. Spawn Man (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: have you read the article? Because I think a read-through of the article clearly shows the difference. Besides, this article and the Superman article are too long to be merged. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How would I be able to comment if I hadn't even read the article? I have and I stand by my convictions. You could create another meaningless article in Bruce Wayne which could be copiously long, but we have not as it is not practical. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and cut down on content. Who knows, if the merge really doesn't work out, you can always restore the article. And I watch the pages I comment on, so no need to post on my talk page. Cheers, :) Spawn Man (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people just see a merge tag with another article and they automatically jump to the discussion and give their reasons without reading the article. Some people also aren't watching every page that they comment on. As I've said before, the discussion on who is the real identity alone warrants the article, and adding anything of significant length to the Superman page, which is an FA, would risk the article being too long. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little tired of this pathetic argument 'They're both too long to be merged'. I refuse to believe, once you have cut through the cruft and unsourced info, that the relevant info could not be moved into the Superman one. asyndeton (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is one thing everybody is forgetting to mention: The television series Smallville. In my opinion, that series justifies the article right there. Clark Kent is the main character of Smallville, not Superman, therefore, the article should remain because it is about the main character of a television series. Plenty of television characters have their own articles. The page must remain for that reason. Case closed. Johnred32 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Smallville kinda sucked. Let's not base our decisions on B-grade series, but on logic. Spawn Man (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is true that Smallville isn't exactly the end all be all of shows (I don't even watch it) and may not be the best argument. But, you mentioned the Batman/Bruce Wayne thing, but their is a major difference. The Bruce Wayne article was a short stub and was, in layman's terms, crap. Here is the article at its last revision before being blanked. The article was a stub, it was useless, it needed to be merged. This article is a B class article that is strong enough to stand on its own. Johnred32 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know they had an actual Bruce Wayne article until just now. My point is, regardless of whatever the condition of the article that was once there, a great Bruce Wayne article could be made from the tonnes of information out there, but it's just not practical. The same should go for Superman. I'm not going to comment further here (Kinda lame really) and I stand by my opinion. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Asyndeton, you keep saying "I refuse to believe the articles can't be cut down." If you think the Superman article can be cut down to fit the info here, then go for it. But, considering that article's status as an FA, you will run into a lot of opposition in trying to cut the article down to a manageable size that can include the info here. And the article is already pretty much a summary of other articles dealing with Superman. Trying to cut that down to fit the whole argument in is, IMO, not only next to impossible, but impractical as well (hence why I along with others believe that the length of both articles prohibits a nice, clean marge). This article should not exist for the sole reason that Smallville deals with Clark, not Superman (although, that is a good argument in the broader "who is the real identity" debate). It should exist because of the argument. I believe that the argument over who is the real identity is notable enough to have its own article, and the best place for it is in the Clark Kent article? Will there be some info here that is repeated in, say, the history of Superman article? Sure. That's going to happen. But, there is enough different material to warrant its own article. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we cut down the Superman article; I'm suggesting we take anything that is noteworthy, appropriate and not fancruft from this article and put it in the Superman article, or another if there is an article in which it would be better suited. But the Superman article's featured status cannot be the sole reason for not merging. asyndeton (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so then how about you go through this article and do just that? You're the only one suggesting it, so you're the best person to do that. If it can be cut down to a good length, I won't have a problem with merging the two, although I suggest creating a sandbox to get a good idea of what the appropriate length would be, instead of just changing this article. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in Superman and I'm not going spend my time trying to create an amalgamtion of the two articles that would work; I'm simply here because I don't think Superman should be any different to the dozens of other superheroes out there. asyndeton talk 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I must say that it's entirely unfair that you "refuse to believe the articles can't be trimmed down" when you're not willing to make the edits yourselves. And the fact is, Superman IS different from all the other superheroes out there. He was the first one, and a lot of things of the superhero genre that are now considered staples, such as secret identities, all started with Superman. Like Alexander Luthor said during Infinite Crisis, "Everything begins with Superman." Anakinjmt (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think you all are crazy. Clark Kent is too big a wimp to be Superman. He even wears glasses! They're obviously not the same person. ;) - JasonAQuest 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should simply close discussion, due to the crackpot idea they're the same person. Next people will believe that flakey billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne is some tough-as-nails vigilante. 66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, can this discussion close with no consensus. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

No, this will end with a decision, one way or the other. This has clearly caused a large amount of interest and we are not going to pretend this never happened - which, coincidentally, would mean you getting your way - just because there are differing opinions. asyndeton talk 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If consensus can't be reached, consensus can't be reached, and things will stay the same. It's not "getting our way," it's a matter of there simply being no consensus, so things will stay as they are. It's been going on since October, for almost a full two months. If we can't get consensus after two months, I doubt we'll get to one in the near future. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge. As Ace ETP notes, the article is wildly speculative, engages in armchair psychiatry, and lacks sources. It would be far better served integrated into the main article. As to space concerns at Superman, perhaps some review for brevity is needed there as well. Even an FA can get some pruning without much controversy if handled properly, and arguing about that instead of this is strawman in nature anyways. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Clark Kent is Superman who was born Kal-El. It doesn't make sense that there are two seperate articles about the same person just because he changes into a costume and takes off his glasses.--Pilot expert (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again: it's not a simple matter like Bruce Wayne becoming Batman or Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man. Superman is the iconic superhero; he is the most thought of character when the word "superhero" is mentioned. If it wasn't for him, superheroes like there are today wouldn't exist; as Alexander Luthor says in Infinite Crisis, "Everything begins with Superman." Because of this, and the his longevity, there is a huge debate over who is the real identity. Especially when for decades it was thought to be Superman, and now it's thought to be Clark. I'll only say this one more time, to not seem like a broken record, but the debate alone warrants the article. I've noticed no one has responded to that, which IMO is a huge reason for keeping them separate. You take that out, and I'll vote for merge. Also, a lot of people have been saying "trim the Superman article down then" or "trim the Clark Kent article down then" to fit them. If that's what you think, and what you want to have happen, then go for it! Show us it can be done, because I personally don't see how it can be. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate, no consensus. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Merge: I stronly suggest merging it. People say there is a very large difference between Kent and Superman. Peter Parker and Spider-Man aren't two different articles, and Kent need not either. I think we should just cut the text off the Kent article and paste it under Early Life in the Superman article. --The Dark Lord of Wiki (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Really, the only reason this article should exist separately from the Superman article is for one of two reasons - A) if there are reliable third-party sources establishing Clark Kent as a notable character in his own right, or B) if there is enough relevant, reliably sourced information with real-world context to justify it branching off as a subarticle of the Superman article. Currently, I don't see either. There's lots of information sure, but most of it seems to be plot and original research; fans simply regurgitating what happens in the comics/films/shows and commenting on it themselves with personal analysis. If Clark Kent really is independantly notable as the definitive/archetypal secret identity as has been said in this discussion, then there should be sources discussing that. Sorry, but your opinion as a fan doesn't hold weight; you have to prove it. If there's so much info here that couldn't be covered on the Superman article, then that info should also be sourced and have context. It doesn't all have to be from third parties - comments from the Smallville writers about how they developed the character don't establish notability but they are relevant. This isn't a case of "Are Clark and Superman the same person?"... that's irrelevant, the issue is whether there's enough relevant, sourced information to warrant a seperate page. Based on the current article, there's not, and because of this, I'm inclined to say merge. I'm almost certain that enough sources exist out there for Clark Kent to deserve his own page, but until you find those sources and impliment them, you can't justify keeping this article.  Paul  730 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Per WP:Size if the 2 articles were merged we would have an article here well over 100 KB long, which is a blantent violation of the 32 KB article size guideline. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose in principle. While I agree that this article is poorly cited, I don't agree that it is a topic unworthy of a separate article. I certainly don't want every comic book character to be split into separate articles for heroic identity and secret identity. However, I think we should allow for exceptions to that rule. I feel that there is enough legitimate material here to warrant an article. And I believe that Clark Kent is notable enough in his own right that we should be able to find reliable sources (preferably secondary) to either back up or replace the OR. It's not going to kill me if these two articles do end up being merged, but I think that not allowing for the possibility of a stand-alone article is a mistake. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I see Bruce Wayne mentioned in this discussion frequently. I haven't looked over the discussions that led to its merger with Batman, but I'm sure that similar arguments were presented. However, I do find it interesting that Matches Malone is still a separate article. Perhaps if we can find some scholarly resources discussing the Kill Bill question, i.e., the extent to which Clark Kent is a "made up" persona, not unlike Matches Malone, it will help to justify this article's existence. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an exhaustive discussion that has been going for almost 3 months and is cycling with no resolve. There is clear precidence in wiki of when in doubt, do nothing, which is the case here. The coversation has pushed the talk page to 33Kib, which clearly is a reflection of how thorough a discussion this has been. No consensus. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Do you think that just because you write 'no consensus' in bold that this is immediately going to end? asyndeton talk 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully. Do you think that because you take offense to my reassertion of the obvious, that I am not right? no consensus. (34Kib and growing). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

FYI you can continue to list the size of this page as long as you want but it won't stop discussion. You think once a talk page is past a certain size that no more discussion can be had? It's called archiving. asyndeton talk 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of archiving. What may have been missed in my previous edits was that I am using the current size of the talk page (35Kib) to better illustrate the point that this discussion has been going on too long, with equally valid points, but not resolve ... the definition of no consesnus. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

(re-tab) I'm inclined to agree. This debate has been going on since October 13, almost 3 months ago. I'm inclined to believe that no consensus can be reached here. And I think that citations can be found for this article. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the longest running merge debate that I have continually paid attention to, so I don't actually know if there are any Wiki guidelines or policies on how much time it should be allowed to go on for. Is there any suggested maximum? asyndeton talk 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.