Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Plunderer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. There are some sensible suggestions for merging but the suggested target is HUGE so such a move would best be worked out on both talk pages. IMHO the most sensible thing to do is a straight redirect to List_of_Batman_enemies#Foes_of_lesser_renown but nobody has !voted for that and I don't like to do supervotes. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Plunderer

[edit]
Penny Plunderer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Penny Plunderer is a non-notable minor Batman supervillain. Joe Chill (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like closes as "delete and then redirect" or "delete and then merge", and I think they're best avoided unless there's extremely problematic material in an earlier revision (such as a copyvio). In this case there's none. Deleting the history seems pointlessly vindictive to me. Restore to this revision of April 2008.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable. I have added several citations including encyclopedic sources such as The encyclopedia of comic book heroes and The Essential Batman Encyclopedia‎. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per S Marshall and Colonel Warden, good justifications for keep especially encyclopedic references. 98.231.142.70 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the addition of sources, I cannot agree that every single entry in "The Essential Batman Encyclopedia", or everything mentioned in an article about Batman in "The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes" is notable enough to become its own Wikipedia article. As an analogy, there are encyclopedias and concordances that have articles about every person who ever appeared on television or film in the Star Trek franchise, but that doesn't make the character of, say, Bele, generally notable ("Bele", by the way, is the dude played by Frank Gorshin on that episode of Star Trek where there were the two guys whose face was black on one side and white on the other, and he has his own entry in the B-section of The Star Trek Concordance and The Star Trek Encyclopedia). That it is in a Batman encyclopedia is not general notability, and, going by WP:Notability (fiction), the description is purely in-universe, with no significance in the real world. Very few Batman characters would merit their own article. We don't have individual pages for minor fictional characters anymore, and they've been gradually migrating over to entertainment wikis like The Batman Wiki were intended to do. Mandsford 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you're suggesting that that we should determine notability according to the personal tastes of editors such as yourself. This is not our policy nor should it be. Other projects are irrelevant - we are only concerned with this one here. And the real alternative here is List of Batman Family enemies but that has a peculiar title which is much harder to find if you're looking for a particular person such as our topic. And it is too large as editors are advised "This page is 97 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.". As Wikipedia is increasingly used on handheld devices with small screns, we should divide such bloated assemblages into small, well-formed articles like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm suggesting no such thing. The point I'm relying upon is this from WP:Notability (fiction) : "Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work." Several (though not a lot) of the fictional villains in the world of Batman do have real world notability, such as the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, etc. Do you have anything you can cite to that shows (a) that the "Penny Plunderer" is notable outside of the comic itself or (b) that there is another specific policy that should apply? We each have our personal tastes, to be sure-- it's not just I-- but at least I have something to cite to. Mandsford 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is it you're citing as an alternative to what you describe as a joke? I think that more people would say that the silly days where Wikipedia had lots of individual articles about Pokemons and other minor characters from TV shows and comic books, but fewer about people who actually existed, is a worse joke. Seriously, an article about "The Penny Plunderer" because he is in "The Essential Batman Encyclopedia"? Should we have an article about anything listed here? Real persons at least have to satisfy a standard of some sort (WP:PEOPLE -- basically, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field") -- and I don't know why something make believe should be excused from meeting any standard at all. Mandsford 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline which is generally followed is topics "that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources". This explicitly excludes "importance" as a criterion and so your disdain for this class of topics is just a personal opinion which we should discount because it is contrary to multiple policies. I have cited multiple independent works in which our topic has been noticed and so it is notable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this isn't deleted, I agree that it should be merged or redirected. I am a huge fan of Batman and he is my favorite superhero, but that doesn't change the fact that not all of his enemies are notable. Creating articles on enemies just because they are in a Batman encyclopedia is stupid. The Batman encyclopedia that Colonel Warden talked about has a bunch of minor low level crooks and gangsters. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such merger or redirection would shuffle the material around to no purpose - a pointless labour which would not assist our readership in any way. It would be contrary to our sensible guideline about WP:SIZE and this is a strong reasons not to do this as bloated web pages have significant physical effects which make it difficult or impossible to read them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's your personal belief. Penny Plunderer still isn't notable. How can a guy that only faced Batman once and is only mentioned in encyclopedias that have to do with everything Batman or superhero everything notable? Non-notable things should be merged if possible. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you have it completely backwards. It is not my opinion that this topic is worthy of note. This is the opinion of the numerous independent, professional authors, editors and publishers who have produced material about this topic, as I have cited. My own view is not inserted here as I was unfamiliar with the details of this topic until I came across the AFD. Your opinion, on the other hand, is not based upon any independent evidence - it is purely an expression of your own personal distaste and so is contrary to our policies of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. And your argument that non-notable things should be merged if possible is also a fabrication of your own devising, not supported by any policy. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a reality show and you are not Simon Cowell or some viewer who is invited to vote upon whether you like an act or not. We require independent evidence here, not original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous? You pointed to two encyclopedia and I said how they don't prove notability. It's common practice to merge non-notable things if there is a merge target. "Please understand that Wikipedia is not a reality show and you are not Simon Cowell or some viewer who is invited to vote upon whether you like an act or not." Well, you obviously have a battleground mentality. By the way, my beliefs aren't POV and you're an ultra inclusionist that twists guidelines in your favor. Also, did you read WP:CENSOR? That policy is about Wikipedia articles possibly having offensive content such as porn. WP:OR is about original research in articles. The key words are to a significant degree. How is an encyclopedia with everything about Batman and an encyclopedia with everything about superheroes significant? Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline explains what is meant by significance: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.' In this case, sources have been presented which cover the topic in detail. This coverage is therefore significant. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for WP:CENSOR, I have certainly read it. This concerns "objectionable" content - content which readers object to because of its nature. That's what you and Mandsford are doing here. Having an article about a Batman villain offends your sense of propriety and so you object to it. But personal tastes are not a sensible basis for determining content as they are too arbitrary: de gustibus non est disputandum. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on the Google book search. Not just in the comic book itself, but publications which are mostly text. [1] Plus mentioned in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia and The encyclopedia of comic book heroes, Volume 1‎. Coverage equals notability. That's the rules of Wikipedia. It has to either have coverage, or be notable for other reasons. Dream Focus 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is an encyclopedia with everything about Batman and an encyclopedia with everything about superheroes significant? Colonel Warden dances over the question so maybe you can answer it. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coverage is there. It was seen as notable enough to include in there, so its notable enough to be included here on Wikipedia. That's how things work. And I doubt every single villain ever was included. With that series going on for decades, I doubt it'd all fit. Just those considered notable enough by the editorial staff. Dream Focus 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A possible merge and redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. The topic already being in other encyclopedias is a nice indicator that we might consider including the subject in some manner here as well. The encyclopedia of comic book heroes and The Essential Batman Encyclopedia‎ allow me a reasonable presumption that other sources exist, and initial results give such as AV Club... so we do have more with which to work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You may have gotten away this time, Penny Plunderer, but one day you shall be brought to justice..." Mandsford 15:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Mandsford mentioned above, Penny Plunderer deserves a mention at least in a list of villains. It's also a reasonable search term to point readers to that list, wherever it may be. Accordingly, that means the title warrants being kept. Whether to merge the content into that list is not an issue for deletion; that's an issue for discussion on the talk page of the article and/or the targeted list, as MichaelQSchmidt noted above. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penny_Plunderer&oldid=1080226232"