Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in the Batman franchise


 * 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the Batman franchise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 Kosh Vorlon   13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)  Kosh Vorlon   13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Batman or LGBT themes in American mainstream comics or LGBT themes in comics. There are some sources which discuss this, but not to the extent that a stand-alone article is warranted. It is already covered in those three articles to the extent it needs to be. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep there are plenty of relevant sources.,  and  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)


 * 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, 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)
 * Keep. There are quite enough sources in the article to establish notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:29, 30 March 2016 (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.