Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batcomputer

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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batcomputer

This is a non-notable story element of the Batman franchise. There's nothing in the secondary sources available to warrant discussion of this item outside of the main Batman article, and it's described primarily with in-story references. At best it should redirect to Batman. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the franchise article. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything useful exists, merge and redirect either to franchise article, or some "List of Batman gadgets" article (if one exists); otherwise, straight up redirect. umrguy 42 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There are plenty of sources for this. The Batman article already has a merge proposal for other Batstuff like the utility belt. This matter belongs there, not here, because the deletion is obviously inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reliable sources listed. Can you provide some? Corvus cornix_talk 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the seven inline cites, most of them are to fansites or to cached versions of fansite (some of which are broken). There's an completely superfluous link to a page about "Quantum neural computing". None of these sources are acceptable. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not looked for other sources? Like Encyclopedia of Television Subjects, Themes and Settings, The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television, The Encyclopedia of TV Science Fiction, etc. Please see our editing policy which explains how we improve articles: Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made the claim that There are plenty of sources for this and yet have provided none. Even the links above don't provide any sources for this subject. It is the responsibility of those who claim that there are reliable sources, to provide them, not for those asking for the sources to have to dig for them. Don't wave your hand and say they're out there, show them to us. Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these listed encyclopedic works contain coverage of the Batcomputer. They are books and so if you want to know more you will have to do it the old-fashioned way - try a library or bookstore. The point is that they demonstrate that the topic is notable and should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the contents of the second book, but the first and third books each only mention the Batcomputer once. In the later's case, it's only mentioned as part of a plot by Marsha, Queen of Diamonds. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PLOT applies here, as clarified in WP:WAF#Summary style approach. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - this article exists under the same rationale as "Batsuit" and "Bat-Signal". Most of the info here is inherently notable, and, if in the case that that this article is to be deleted, the content should be merged with the main article. --Flewis^(talk) 06:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is inherently notable. Notability needs to be established. Currently there is nothing to establish that this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, it's odd that you cite the film notability guideline. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film notability guideline - because this article has content directly pertaining to a film (to be blunt: that was a bit of a no-brainer). --Flewis^(talk) 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film guideline applies to films only. The batcomputer is not a film. It's a fictional object. I don't see how you would even apply inclusion criteria intended for movies to a computer. The relevant guideline would be WP:FICT or even just WP:GNG. I would recommend knowing what you're talking about before implying that others don't. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly. This is nowhere near being notable. It doesn't even have in-universe notability, much less real-universe notability. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll trust CW that the sources exist as he has a great track record on things like this. But I'd really like to see them added to the article soon or else merge somewhere. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major elements of fiction as notable as this are appropriate for an article. The primary sources would be enough for V, but In any case, it seems there are secondary sources. DGG (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Batcomputer isn't a major in-story element, and the secondary sources are insufficient, as pointed out above. The books presented as secondary sources only mention the Batcomputer in passing (only mentioned in a single sentence), and only in relation to the 1966 Batman series. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Fanboy Trivia, Batman...Delete! There is no logic, let alone evidence, to warrant a standalone article on this subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe detail, plot, and trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:04, 30 September 2008 (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.