Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Superman and 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 was delete. --Coredesat 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Superman and Batman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another overzealous Batman article. Unencyclopedic, an essay consisting entirely of original research and fan speculation. ~CS 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. ~CS 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure if this article is okay, but given the existence of the "Superman and Batman" comic series (which often emphasizes the differences and similarities, from what I can see), an article on the two in relation to each other may be justified. --Sid 3050 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if sources can be given. Otherwise, delete. Dlong 18:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an original researched essay, per WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Whether the continence of the essay is verifiable is irrelevant. --Farix (Talk) 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a textbook example of original research. YechielMan 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this could get out of hand if allowed. There are a lot of superheros you couold write this type of article on. Batman and Moon Knight is a good example. Its to much of a slippery slope. Stephen Day 21:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I agree that not just any characters should have articles like this, I see the comparison between these two characters as exceptionally relevant because of their prominent cultural status, the close relevance they have to each other, and their juxtaposition within Frank Miller's books, Superman/Batman and the Justice League.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment That still doesn't change the fact that it is a essay based on your own original research. --Farix (Talk) 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're labelling the entire article with a couple of words, generalising for the sake of convenience. Nothing is as black and white as that. As far as I'm concerned, there are too many people on this site who think the truth exists in absolutes. My faith in this site is shaken. This will be my last edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs).

We certainly won't miss your melodrama. If you have no real evidence for your opinions, then we can't be expected to believe your assertions. That's the way things are. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is pure original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nearly the definition of original research. I'm certain one could find individual comic books that have a situation where these two characters behaved toward each other in a certain way...but unless one could find an interview with the writer and artist of that comic book, any interpretation of the MEANING of that encounter only exists in the mind of the individual, not in any objective and verifiable state. An article about a psychology textbook that uses Superman and Batman as examples might be excyclopaedic (something like The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer) but a straight up article that attempts to determine meaning, psychology and interpretation to these characters is exactly what WP:OR is intended to avoid. -Markeer 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, call me a heretic, but I think Wikipedia's whole pretence of not containing original research is increasingly laughable, especially in cases like this where existing scholarship is minimal or non-existant. While a worthy goal, it's entirely undercut by its very status as a text that anyone can edit (and don't get me started on "not notable" when this site has individual articles for EVERY EPISODE of most current US TV shows!). Even highly-sourced articles contain great heaping piles of original research if you care to read between the lines, so I think that new articles such as this one (which, frankly, I'm not going out of my way to defend on its own merits) get unfairly targeted. I mean really, honestly; if every unverified sentence on Wikipedia that's suspected of being OR was cut then how much content do you think we'd loose? 30%? 50%? 75%? Think about it. -PacifistPrime

  Awesome. Let's throw open the doors to every crank with a proposed theory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congratulations, you made a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, Prime. Delete. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:44, 15 February 2007 (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.