Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bat-embargo

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bat-embargo

original research on an ongoing topic so unencyclopedic : This is a current topic of discussion which may end up being a very obscure footnote in a rather specialist area. Any reasonable article at this point will be original research, difficult to verify and quickly outdated. I suggest cleanly deleting; at least for the present moment. Mozzerati 21:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: This was voted for merger previously into Justice League Unlimited, and this was done. No need for this level of info ona very minor point that is already adequately covered. Dyslexic agnostic 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: While I sympathize T-Man's desire to be bold, there simply is not enough encyclopedic information to justify its own wiki.--Gillespee 23:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: and help me by providing more encyclopedic information. And please, lets try to hear different opinions besides dyslexic, Khaos, myself and Gillespee for a change.--T for Trouble-maker 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

this entry unsigned by the creator of this wiki, T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (sorry, hah, hah, :P --T for Trouble-maker 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

This article was merged to the JLU article before, but as you can see, it got sized down to a couple fo small paregraphs.

• Delete, fancruft Incognito 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy relating to fancruft

As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and POV - all things that lead to deletion. Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are highly controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its deletion, but it is rarely the sole factor.

• Smerge to Justice League Unlimited, which already discusses this material. -Sean Curtin 05:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and maybe shorten and merge, verifiable. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Justice League Unlimited. It appears to be verifiable, although not fully encyclopedic on its own. The article itself is practically unreadable and all the needed information can be told in two paragraphs. --Pc13 00:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The info about it that's in Justice League Unlimited is plenty in relation to the subject's importance. Hirudo 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since it was already merged as per original afd. And someone make sure all its redirects get taken care of, too. --InShaneee 04:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Postdlf 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, relevant information accesible alreay at Justice League Unlimited. Hiding talk 16:10, 22 January 2006 (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.