Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics)


 * 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   merge to List of Batman Family enemies. Per PRESERVE but the arguments that this lacks sufficient evidence of independant sourcing for a standalone article is persuasive Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Abattoir (comics)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced article about a minor character who appeared in a handful of comics. Fails the general notability guideline and also fails to meet the verifiability policy that articles "should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In fact, there are no third-party sources at all provided here. *** Crotalus *** 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weep keep - recurring Batman villain, albeit a minor one. I've added the rescue tag in hope of attracting some proper sourcing. Artw (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling him a "recurring villain" is a bit much when he appeared in a grand total of 5 issues over 20 years, two of them posthumously. *** Crotalus *** 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - There must be a List Of villains to merge to, if nothing else? - BalthCat (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe List_of_Batman_Family_enemies? Starblueheather —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starblueheather (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He has been featured prominently in many notable works. See all the blue links of his appearances?   D r e a m Focus  16:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Abattoir isn't really a character so much as he is a plot device. There really isn't much to say about him other than simply repeating the handful of stories in which he appeared. Abattoir was nothing more than a plot device used to justify Batman's "no-kill" rule and show Bruce Wayne's tactics as superior to those of Jean-Paul Valley. He probably rates a mention in Batman: Knightfall, but nothing more. The appearance in Blackest Knight is even more minor, and completely trivial (there probably aren't any dead characters in the last 25 years of the DC Universe that haven't appeared in that story). *** Crotalus *** 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnotable minor character who has appeared in only a few of the comics. Completely fails WP:N and too minor for redirecting/merging anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. In spite of being selected for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, no sources appear in the article. This means that no sources exist, and the article should be deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Flawed reasoning. You can't assert that no sources exist just because no sources appear in the article.  I don't care if the article is kept or deleted, but this sort of comment needs to be challenged with a clue-stick. Hiding T 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Article Rescue Squadron would have found sources if they existed. They are very good at that. Sometimes the sources they find are primary and/or unreliable, but the fact that even those are absent speaks for itself. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I stopped adding references after 4. There were more. The statement above is lazy and dismissive. Mjpresson (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I also did my own search. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's still lazy reasoning. You can't assert "no sources exist", because it is unprovable, and that sort of statement needs to be challenged to teach people how to debate points in a collegiate manner so that we can engage with each other and reach a proper consensus. Hiding T 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There's a short entry about the character in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia (p. 3).SPNic (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete character so minor that it's very unlikely any non-primary sources would exist. If they do, let's see 'em. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has now been adequately referenced with 4 inlines and 3 externals. The body is well wikified and links to several other articles and has an informative fairuse pic. I don't see any problems and I don't even like comics. Took about 20 minutes. Geez, people.....Mjpresson (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only one of the sources provided is reliable. You have linked to Comic Vine, a forum/wiki. It doesn't count. However, the The Essential Batman Encyclopedia is reliable, but not independent; it is copyrighted by DC Comics. So it doesn't count either. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the company that controls Batman says this is an essential character, then they are the final authority on that. Primary sources are fine for some things.   D r e a m Focus  16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only secondary and tertiary are allowed for notability. If your notion was adopted as policy, then other corporations such as AIG, Blackwater Worldwide and Halliburton could stink up Wikipedia with whatever they want, and we would have to take it, because it was published by them. DC Comics is a for-profit corporation, and this book and this character are its products. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully most people can see the difference between a company publishing a book about their fictional characters, and other types of information. If a company claimed a certain person was great and important for whatever reason, that could just be hype, so you'd have to consider doubting it as reliable.  This is a fictional character, and there is no possible reason DC would include them in a list of notable Batman villains, if the character wasn't in fact notable.  They are the authority on the importance of their own fictional characters.  This isn't just some press release you could dismiss as hype either.  This is from a book they published on these things.   D r e a m Focus  00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Except using such a source for notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The character recently resurfaced in October 2009's Blackest Knight #1 - newcomers to the character will be curious where it came from and there's no reason to not let Wikipedia be a source for information on it. He's enough of a villian to get sidelong mentions in posts like this one, it seems like his villianhood is established to me. I added a 6th Appearance according to Unearthing Batman's Rogues.  More information about his appearance in Batman Annual #22 is needed - the quick summary in the reference didn't give me enough to go on. (I too agree that primary sources are appropriate for info, but not notability.  However, I also see this character in the unofficial DC Universe guide and other sources that are third party enough for me). Netmouse (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm of two minds when it comes to character pages like this. The lack of secondary sources makes me want to say delete. However, the sheer number of character articles we have makes me want to say keep, and yes I realize that this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I'm inclined to say that unless we can get Notability (fiction) set as a policy, we should probably keep this and other articles like this. I do think there are alternatives to deletion. The suggestion to redirect it to [[List_of_Batman_Family_enemies seems like a good start. Perhaps a more detailed list split alphabetically would serve for these types of fictional characters, since I've observed that many appear closer to fan pages than encyclopedia articles. Still, keep for now and hopefully we can come up with some enforceable guidelines for fiction in the future.   AniMate   01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per our First pillar as character is covered in a print specialized encyclopedia, i.e. is verifiable in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-independent sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They still count as reliable sources by any reasonable or logical standard. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is that anybody notvoting to delete based on lack of reliable third party sources is an unreasoning brute. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article will be kept due to the proven existence of sources that any reasonable and honest editor would call reliable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep List of Batman Family enemies is already quite full......--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to keep. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not one to delete. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason to delete is lacking independent secondary sources. That is always the reason to delete. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If true, but it is not the case here as sources sufficiently independent for Wikipedia's purposes have been indicated to exist. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reason? I always thought it just an excuse if someone didn't like something and wanted to destroy it.   D r e a m Focus  23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool it with the ad hominem stuff, please.--chaser (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This onerous requirement of independent, third party sources that analyze the topic is what allows Wikipedia to be a resource for the perplexed, to be an encyclopedia, to be respected for its scholarship. Get rid of that requirement, and Wikipedia would lose its uniqueness. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately this article concerns an undeniably notable recurring villain from the astonishingly significant Batman franchise and that is worthy of inclusion as an entry in a print encyclopedia even. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I deny its notability, and have the lack of sources on my side. You wish it was notable, and have a keyboard and an internet connection on your side. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not about "sides". The sources discussed above and that are cited in the article prove notability, which is why the majority of participants in this discussion are arguing to keep.  I cannot be persuaded that a published encyclopedia verifying the existence of something that also appears in published books that we can also see excerpts from on Google Books as well and that concerns a recurring villain in the Batman universe is somehow so damaging to the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit that it would need to be redlinking rather than even at worst redirected.  Obviously the editors who wrote and created this article find it worthwhile.  It is not a hoax, it is not libelous, it is not a copy vio.  It is not so minor of a villain that it is omitted from the aforementioned print encyclopedia.  There is no need to go in circles here.  Myself and others find these reasons compelling.  Have a nice night!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not striving to convince you. Your belief system is well known, as is your penchant for arguing passionately. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete in the absence of sources independent of promotional material produced by the owner of this fictional idea that would establish independent notability for the fictional idea independent of the fictional work it inhabits. None have been provided here, and i can find none on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made after nomination and per the untapped non-primary sources that may well be included per WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE and WP:IMPERFECT . Subject is notable per guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * keep or merge I note, FWIW, that about half the article is not plot summary, but RW publication information. The same can presumably be done easily for any fictional character in a series . There is enough information here to justify an article, according to the GNG.  But  I continue to think that minor characters of this sort should nonetheless usually be merged into a combination article--one that is not just a list but contains a paragraph or two of content, including the list of appearances. (the list article gives only first appearance; it should include every one of them--that's encyclopedic information.)    The argument pro and con is actually one of arrangement, not of content. The encyclopedia would contain the same content, merged or not merged.  This article does not belong in AfD in any case, because at least a redirect would certainly be appropriate, and no reason whatever have been given why it would not be.    DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Abductives statements.  Click23 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.