Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexual interpretations of Batman

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 of the debate was delete. Wait a minute, I can't see why we can't have this as a redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual interpretations of Batman

• Delete This section of the Batman article has been agreed upon by a number of editors and has withstood attack as well as suggestions it be removed, for over a year now. The consensus has consistently been that it would be against the rules to remove the material to its own article since it is against policy to get rid of provocative material in this fashion. The argument that the article is too long is spurious on its face: for example, today's featured article Sun is 51K long, while the Batman article is only 44K long, and there are other sections that could be spun off if so desired. Haiduc 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete There is no reason for this to have its own article. Carlo 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Well written article with plenty of references. Should have found the Batman talk page earlier. Merge it back into Batman.
• It's a disputed fork from the main Batman article. Delete this fork and keep the information in the main Batman article, per consensus on the talk page. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Although I am not as pessimistic regarding the intentions of the article's creator (I feel he/she/hir probably had good intentions), those reasons do not warrant the action taken. Therefore, delete this article and keep the information in Batman where it belongs. CaveatLector^Talk 04:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and put it back where it came from. Fan1967 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and keep the material in the Batman article per others. Hbackman 05:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and keep the material in the Batman article -- Samuel Wantman 08:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oliver Keenan 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Batman or Seduction of the Innocent. Robin Johnson 11:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Pretty funny, but merge back into Batman. Lankiveil 11:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
• Err, delete POV fork. Keep content at Batman. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It could use some rewriting to make it more encyclopedic, but it's a reasonable issue regarding a notable fictional character; although it might otherwise be better dealt with in the main article, this is already 44 kb, too long according to Wikipedia:Article size. ProhibitOnions 12:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pov magnet. Osomec 13:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork, nonsense. --Terence Ong 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think it's the begining of an article that will be strong enough to stand on it's own merits. -- Ipstenu 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since this information is already doing fine in the Batman article. I'm not convinced there's much more to say than is already there. -- Mithent 14:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and Keep the material in the Batman article. Well sourced description of a legitimate and widely-held point of view. No good reason for removing it from the Batman article has been articulated. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge it back or Keep. Material too good to throw away. --kingboyk 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (merge and delete is banned per GFDL). Unless this was split out, in which case revert and delete. Just zis Guy you know? 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello, this isn't especially related to the issue at hand, but it is incorrect that the "merge and delete" option is "banned per GFDL." See this discussion between Rossami and DPB Smith; for methods of doing it, see this post. Regards —Encephalon 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Batman (not the entire article, just a brief summary). Catamorphism 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sourced, verifiable, basically well written and intersting. Batman is 44K with this material, so breaking it out would be reasonable. I would not support reducing it to a brief summary in Batman - why take legit information out of the encyclopedia? BD2412 T 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412 -- and I'm usually a mergist. --M@rēino 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe the best thing to do is to have this information in the main article. There it presently resides, and sits very well with the rest of the article which provides it context, lacking in the fork. The (possiblly POV) fork has nothing that the version in the original article Batman doesn't—unsurprisingly, as it looks like it was simply removed from the original article. (An editor later reverted the deletion from the original, so this same text now lies in two pages). The removal accomplished little: it reduced the size by a miniscule 4k. Furthermore, Batman is a Wikipedia:Featured article: part of its value is that it includes this thoughtful, well-written section on an interesting subject, the sort of commentary that is sorely lacking in most comic and pop-culture type articles on WP. Deleting the section is therefore a poor choice, IMHO: we damage a featured article by removing one of its most interesting sections, and then place this well-written information to what amounts to a POV fork, where bereft of context it is distinctly suboptimal. All for the supposed benefit of reducing the article from 44kb to 40kb. If 44kb was a perfectly acceptable length for the FA director, then it ought to be perfectly fine for Wikipedia, I imagine. ;-) Therefore, delete Homosexual interpretations of Batman, please. There is no need to merge anything, as the text was originally at Batman (and still is, along with the pictures and references). The references in the original have to be sorted out by someone familiar with the article, though: there appear to be two sections. —Encephalon 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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.