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. Tone 23:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batarang[edit]

[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)

While this article has been recently expanded with a few more sources, they don't help with the main issue, which is that this is essentially a WP:PLOT summary with a 'list of appearances in media' thrown in (therefore this fails WP:NFICTION/GNG). Batarang has never been analyzed beyond that. Batman is a popular enough franchise that there are several 'Batman encyclopedias' and some do include entries on Batarang, but the problem is that they do not go an inch beyond plot summaries (ex. The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes: Batman: "Over the years, Batman and Robin have devised an arsenal of emergency batarangs, each one suited to some special purpose. These include the magnet or magnetic batarang, for disarming criminals and other uses; the seeing-eye batarang ..." Pure plot summary, no deeper analysis. In the end, there is little to say about this item - witness this great 'reference' used in the article: [1]. At best, this can be SOFTDELETED and merged/redirected to Batman or such (since it is a plausible search term related to Batman franchise), but there is no reason we need a separate article about 'types of Batarangs and media they appeared in', which is all that is written here, and I see no source that goes beyond this. (Ok, this is cute, but the fact that batarang is used as an example of" how the reader interprets the action in a comic panel" does not make it notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED). In the end, this is as notable of a topic as an article about types of Superman capes or such. WP:FANCRUFT, that is to say. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wp:Imperfect. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many sources already in the article:
- The DC Comics Encyclopedia by Alastair Dougall, Dorling Kindersley (2008)
- The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes, vol 1: Batman by Michael L. Fleisher, Macmillan (1976)
- The Essential Batman Encyclopedia by Robert Greenberger, Del Rey (2008)
- The batarang prop that is in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, as a notable artifact of American film history
- "Image Schemas and Conceptual Metaphor in Action Comics", Elizabeth Potsch and Robert F. Williams, in Linguistics and the Study of Comics (Palgrave McMillan, 2012) which is mentioned above, and which demonstrates that the batarang is such a well-known fictional device that it can be used in a linguistics book.

-- Toughpigs (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not every museum exhibit deserves an article. Nothing here goes beyond plot summary or a passing, trivial mention. Please show a single source that discusses this prop in an in-depth way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Batarang was added to the Smithsonian collection, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's one of the few comic book gadgets that is independently notable. There is a decent amount about it in the non-primary sources found by Toughpigs._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Batman's utility belt seems like it would be the best core article, and that article can likely be expanded into something worthwhile. Regardless of what sources even say, it's just a bat-shaped boomerang shuriken. There's only so much you can say about it. Absolutely all discussion about the topic can fit in a couple paragraphs. This is basically just a permastub once you remove all this needless fluff that fails WP:NOTPLOT. There is no particular need to list every single minor usage in media. TTN (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever vote keep? Your stance on one side is getting irritating. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: Please WP:NPA. TTN makes a good point. Please address it instead. You invoke IMPERFECT above. But we need to show - suggest - how can we fix this article. The problem is that sources shown do not allow for any discussion of the topic outside PLOT and list of media appearances. I'd be happy to see this saved, but we need to show how this meets notability for stand-alone articles by showing that this topic received some significant coverage that goes beyond pure plot summary. Have you found any? I did review the sources presented here as best as I could and I don't see anything beyond PLOT summary. Even the Smithsonian entry doesn't say anything about that prop beyond stating it's name and plot-related function (bat shaped shuriken). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address on how that is a personal attack? If you can't then WP:AGF. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph: an actual serious question. Second paragraph. Just honesty. I am a neutral person. If I vote notable then keep and if not then most likely merge. I don't feel that notability has to be proven all the time to fit the agenda that imperfect articles got to go. Yes....some articles are just plot and even (Heaven forbid) and not even sourced. But that don't mean nothing. Using one example: If Scooby-Doo (character) is in poor shape and had little to no citations. Does that it mean not notable and should be merged in Scooby Doo. No! Common sense dictates that it is well heard of and just need to be improved on. Not be freaking obliverated and AFD'd all the time. I personally don't even have to be a fan of Batman to have heard of the Batarang. It's practically an iconic fictional weapon. Also saying "it's just a" [insert description here] is an fallacy. It's like saying Princess Leia's bikini is just a bikini. Oh ok. Let's merge it to Princess Leia then. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 09:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also yes I am well aware of the essay WP:Otherstuffexists (essay not guideline). Just throwing relevant examples out there. Sometimes even guidelines are just "guidelines" anyway. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 09:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources / interesting digs here: Here and Here Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 10:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would and hopefully will add these sources in article. It's just that I am busy with job and / or a different article. There is no deadline. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Better source and more notability than way over half our articles. People who don't like comics are better advised to ponder the Wikipedian's Prayer before trying to destroy good articles -- articles that are longer, better, have better sources, and are about subjects that pass the WP:GNG better than even the average article. See also User:Herostratus/7 Virtues. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman's utility belt, which contains sufficient information on the subject. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient information for you. How do you know what is sufficient information for the reader? You don't. In fact, some percentage of readers who have taken the trouble to search on the term batarang will welcome all or some the information in this article. Those who don't are not required to read beyond the lede. For those who do, why do you wish to deny them this benefit by destroying the existing work of other editors? The article you wish to direct the reader to has maybe 1/20 the information as the existing article. We're supposed to be here to provide rather than remove information. Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As editors here, our duty is to determine what information belongs in an article and present it in a clear manner. My proposed target will inform a reader 1) what a Batarang is 2) who made it and when 3) what it's used for 4) detail on some of the variations and 5) its replacement with the grappling gun. The mass collection of specific uses and colors in other media borders on WP:TEMPLEOFFACTS territory. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. Did you evaluate the links I posted? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into specifics on each one, I didn't find anything in the links that could be used to improve the article in a meaningful way. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Argento Surfer. I mean, there's nothing much to say about the batarang other than it's a boomerang shaped like a bat that Batman uses. It's hardly notable on its own. JOE BRO 64 17:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lightsaber is just a space sword. A blaster is just a space gun. Princess Leia’s metal bikini is just a bikini, Batman’s utility belt is just a belt. The One Ring is just a ring and same with the Power ring. Superman logo is just a logo. The Batmobile is just a car. This is exactly what this logic sounds like. Also we are not supposed to say per whoever. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Jhenderson777, but we're not talking about that here. (Also, every example you listed has some sort of lasting cultural significance, unlike the batarang.) JOE BRO 64 00:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol let’s not be redundant and predictable. look at the sources and the comments that I already brought up. I already pointed out the essay in case someone used it and used sources to help prove significance. Also that essay is for voting not using examples of redundant fallacies. Batarang is iconic too and a signature weapons of Batman. There is at least twenty sources on it if you were paying attention. Prove me wrong? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the sources, if you want to clean up the article, then clear out the cruft. Sadads (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: if you clear out the cruft, you're left with the content at Batman's utility belt. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. Also I think you are just glancing at the sources. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Batarang is only loosely connected to the Utility Belt and is a more familiar item than the Utility Belt. Outside of carrying Kryptonite I am not sure it would be a notable example either. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the most recognizable weapons in comics and popular culture, the Batarang is Batman’s signature weapon of choice, and honors his dedication to fight crime by non-lethal means." Source = https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/technology/346271/real-life-batarang-proves-the-science-behind-batman-works/story/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”the batarang is Batman's most prevalent tool" Headeline says it all too. Source = https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/trending/shining-a-light-saber-on-of-the-best-weapons-in/article_d296e37f-1174-5d0f-b3ed-a87a14e5ea96.html#13

” What do you get when you combine a boomerang with a bat? You get the batarang, one of the most useful and versatile weapons in Batman's arsenal.” Source = https://www.cbr.com/best-worst-batman-gadgets/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

” For most of us, Batman's cool toys are pretty much out of reach. We'll never drive a Batmobile. We won't slip on a Batsuit or fire a Bat grappling gun. The iconic "Batarang," Batman's bat-shaped cross between a throwing star and a boomerang, however, may be a little bit more in reach.” Source = https://www.cnet.com/news/armorer-makes-batman-batarangs-sharp-as-an-ax/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“ A man was arrested in Seattle on Monday, after throwing one of Batman’s iconic bat-shaped weapons at a cop car.” Source = https://time.com/4427361/batman-batarang-police-car/?xid=tcoshare Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the most famous and useful weapons in the DC Universe is the Batarang" Source = https://www.tvovermind.com/20-powerful-weapons-dc-universe/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are in-depth. Combine them and all you get is a two-sentence article. Nothing that cannot fit in the Batman utility belt article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. I was quoting every time it was referred to as "iconic", famous etc. That's not all the info. That is not even every source out there. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also let me get this straight? You want an article of an subject that is referred to as iconic and famous because it's mostly plot and cruft to be redirected to another article that's mostly plot and cruft. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable whether lack of in-depth coverage, but with sources calling something iconic and famous, makes it notable or not. Which is why we are having this debate. If the community's consensus will be that is sufficient, good. If not, also good. The point is we need to occasionally discuss such things. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't. AfD is fine, and useful. Most of the articles submitted to AfD are bad articles. They don't meet the WP:GNG and can't, or a relevant WP:SNG either; the WP:COI spam; they're memorials to worthy but unnotable persons; they're so badly made that they're not an asset to the project and need to be started over; they're irretrievably WP:NPOV or WP:BLP violations ; many other good reasons. Most of them I vote to delete, and most of them do get deleted.

That has nothing to do with this case. The deal here is that there are some editors who don't like comic books and things related to them. I know this, you know this (or should), and everybody knows this, so why tiptoe around the matter? Whether this is bourgeois snobbery or whatever, who knows; I can't see inside people's minds. What matters is that you are wasting our time with efforts to destroy good articles that easily meet the WP:GNG, and the good work of either editors. But I mean, not to be rude, but who cares if you personally don't like to read articles like this? Stop it, please. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you my opinion in this case was not informed by a dislike of comic books. I reviewed the current article both during and before this AfD. I have reviewed the sources provided during this AfD. The quality of them leads me to believe the URLs were copied from a Google news search without inspection. The Daily Mail, NPR, and CNET sources are all the same story: a batarang replica was among some items confiscated by the TSA. That's not something worth including in the article. Most of the listicles describe it as iconic. That's one sentence, and not enough to build an article on. There's a lot of flash here, but no substance. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified by Jhenderson777 and Toughpigs more than establish notability. — Hunter Kahn 16:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are enough to establish notability. I'm also against redirecting because the utility belt actually seems less notable than the Batarang to the average reader. As often happens in these fictional deletion discussions, multiple sources are provided, and the response is "they're not in depth enough". In my opinion, multiple sources mentioning the Batarang do establish notability. But others disagree, so all we can do is keeping having these AFDs to try to form a consensus as best we can. Rhino131 (talk) 14:03, 6 March 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.