Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman modern continuity


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Batman modern continuity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is essentially a bibliography of Batman trade paperbacks that fit into the "modern continuity". Aside from the fact that not all of them do ("Year Two" was removed from continuity a while back), it's wholly focused on a fictional chronology that is not well-defined and provides no secondary sources to establish the nobility of this organization scheme. Thus original research plays a primary factor in determing which books belong here. It's very much a subjective list of "canon" issue collections that has no place on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question If I understand you correctly, this is just a list of what the page author considers to be current Batman canon? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, modern continuity is such that anything before the One Year Later mark might not count anymore anyway (most of it does count, but not all of it). What does or doesn't count now is uncited OR.  Also, I see no justification for some of the ordering that occurs.  Year One, Two & Three are obvious, but why is the Batman Chronicles Special "The Gauntlet" placed where it is?  There's probably a reason but it's probably an OR one. And that's only looking at the Batman section.  I didn't even look at the rest of the Bat-Family stuff Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per the points raised by WesleyDodds and Duggy 1138. The primary problem is that the organization of this bibliography is original research as evidenced by the fact that it contains no citations. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR per WesleyDodds' response to my earlier question. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly OR. JuJube (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete breaks WP:OR as well as WP:WAF. (Emperor (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2008 (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.