Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman (Thomas Wayne)

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 keep. This AfD was flawed by naming, and it's hard to follow who referred to what situation. Nevertheless, there never was consensus for deletion. A merger discussion may be started if someone feels this might produce better results. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (Thomas Wayne)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of Thomas Wayne scope_creep^Talk 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' It seems to be important to you although I don't understand it one bit. I think I have wasted everybody's time. I will close it as a solid keep, if it is ok with @TTN:. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The info is not even on on Thomas Wayne any more. Besides it was a notable topic all by itself as it is a different character. Kind of like Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy) of Gwen Stacy or Old Man Logan of Wolverine (character) for prose. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This pop culture topic seems notable enough, since this was indeed a published work in a notable fictitious character in a well-known publisher and franchise. I agree with the comment above. @Jhenderson777: if that's your view, then could you please vote "Keep" on this? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's terrific. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. This Batman has appeared beyond the "Flashpoint" storyline. Plus, @Jhenderson777: and @Sm8900: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Based on the current incarnation, it fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to where? JIP | Talk 00:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of sources in the "Further Reading" section that are specifically about the character, especially the Comicbook.com, IGN and CinemaBlend articles speculating on who's going to play the character in the Flashpoint movie. It's obvious that the character is notable if there's multiple discussions about who's going to play the role. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the nomination. How can an article be a duplicate of itself? JIP | Talk 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JIP:Thomas Wayne is the parent article to where it was split off to. Hope that helps. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is not going to get a fair shake. When you look at page views, it was was getting 6 a day until it is nominated, no worse nor less than the most obscure article. When you examine it, all you find is an information listings article, who did what and why, and so on, and the process is duplicated in both articles. There is no analysis, or comparison, nor discovery nor insight offered, just the listing what is happening in the magazines. I find it totally banal. Great for fan's, bad for everybody else, or not so much bad, but of little value. The worse thing about it, is the huge template that is preset, with most of the other articles already created, making this Afd almost a foregone conclusion. scope_creep^Talk 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand your issue and the article can be better. Even though the info it is obviously an incarnation of an original character. It’s obvious that it’s an notable incarnation. That’s why I brought it back and still lenient on keep. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination seems to have been critically flawed by naming the article as duplicating itself, rather than Thomas Wayne. Since this was only brought up yesterday, I'm relisting to allow the chance for it to be discussed with that correction in mind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree with the relister's note that the original nomination is confusing -- I just took the bold step of editing the original nomination to point to the correct page. It'll be easier for folks to understand what we're actually talking about. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for Revised Nom. (Note: 2nd comment by me at this AfD) I appreciate the clarification!! my vote for "keep" still stands. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Thomas Wayne. The vast majority of the page consists of overly detailed plot recaps. If trimmed down to a basic summary (not a beat for beat retelling), this could easily be slotted into the main Thomas Wayne article. An unnecessary split. I see no evidence that this version is separately notable. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dang, @Killer Moff:, that's a great handle there, on your user name!!! lol!!

you just cracked me up. I like that! I'll be visiting your user page real soon. expect a visit, where I expect I'll find more whimsicality and whatnot!! lol

thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Wayne. We don't need two pages about what is in essence the same character.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This happens a lot. Just look at my examples above which are clearly notable. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:That was unnecessary to relist this twice. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator even withdrawn. I am not sure why it was relisted when the nominator withdrawn??? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that Jhenderson777 specifically canvassed Darkknight2149 on their user page to participate here. I doubt it'll particularly affect the outcome of this regardless, but likely should be discouraged in the future. TTN (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did invite. We are both a member of the Batman task force if I remember correctly and so he would have wanted to weigh in an relevant info. I didn’t know what his vote would be. Wp:Assumegoodfaith Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Masem: to vote, to address TTN's concern. Dark Knight 2149 23:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Thomas Wayne - Significant third party coverage. Dark Knight 2149 18:41, 22 January 2020 (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.