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.
Total fringe garbage. This has always been a fringe point of view, and it's well known that Wikipedia doesn't represent a fringe point of view.
Delete this garbage
KoshVorlon 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
KoshVorlon 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep there are plenty of relevant sources.
[1],
[2] and
[3] are quickly found example of what seem to be quality scholarly discussions in academic sources.
WP:FRINGE says:
To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.
Which would seem to indicate that having this article is _exactly_ what we should be doing. It clearly meets
WP:N. It may be that more context stating that this is a fringe theory needs to be in the article, but that's an editing problem, not a reason for deletion. Oh, there appear to be a LOT of sources on this. Many more than I'd have ever guessed.
Hobit (
talk) 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The state of the article could be improved upon (I think in particular its overall structure is due for a revamp), but the sources meet
WP:GNG. This section was spun-off from
Batman#Gay interpretations, which used to be much longer. Merging back into that parent article would be undesirable, given its length. It is to be expected under
WP:SUMMARY that this topic will be covered in multiple broader-concept articles.--
Trystan (
talk) 23:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are quite enough sources in the article to establish notability.
Arthistorian1977 (
talk) 11:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - The proposed deletion argument sounds like
a matter of personal taste. There do exist reliable sources that support the article on its own. It is also a good way to keep this material in as a
summary in the main
Batman article.--
MarshalN20Talk 15:29, 30 March 2016 (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.