Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight Universe

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. --Ezeu 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Knight Universe

Cruft. What useful information remains after factoring out what is already in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again should be added to those articles Chris Griswold 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dupe content, original research. --InShaneee 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unneeded. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is an extremely unuseful and misleading article, because it suggests that every Batman story that Miller has written is part of the same "canon", distinct from the main canon, which simply isn't true. DKR and DK2 take place in the same "possible" future, true; but "Year One" is official continuity. Besides which, two books do not make a "universe". Seb Patrick 11:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge anything left into those other two articles. Attic Owl 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What Seb Patrick said above is categorically false. Miller intends all of his stories to be read together: "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU. DC winds up adopting just about all of it, anyway."[1] Spawn/Batman even mentions that it is a companion to DKR on the inside cover. The All-Star Batman and Robin page on Wikipedia mentions that he intends those books to be part of the same universe, which he himself calls The Dark Knight Universe. He also said that it is his own Batman: Year Two, his intended follow-up to Year One[2] . That said, all of his Batman work has an explicitly stated internal continuity regardless of which books are official DC and which aren't. Calling the article "unuseful" and "misleading," therefore, is both unuseful and misleading to this discussion. Furthermore, this article existed as Frank Miller's Batman for over a month without setting off any red flags. So why is the new title suddenly grounds for deletion? It is a resource for Batman fans and fans of Frank Miller to see which works he has written on the character and what chronological order they proceed in, from the beginning to the end of Batman's career. This information is valid, alluded to in previously existing Wikipedia articles, and unavailable on other pages. It serves as a reference page, much as the "List of _____ Episodes" pages do. It also fits into multiple categories on this website such as Batman storylines and Batman writers. It can also be said to be a subcategory of Miller's work, ala the View Askewniverse (which, by the way, gets its own page) in relation to Kevin Smith. Finally, the fact that this was earmarked for deletion because it supposedly contains "false" data is further proof that it contains previously unknown information to users such as those posting above. Apparently, few of them knew that there was a Dark Knight Universe or that Miller's Batman work is internally consistent. Furthermore, the article itself states and has always stated which of these stories are Official DC continuity and which are not, another reason some have earmarked this for deletion. Rather that have an itchy trigger finger (not to mention a belittlement of the author and his or her intent) perhaps we should look at this article and see that it indeed describes a specific, verifiable DC alternate storyline that is only alluded to on other pages, none of which describe its full scope. For all these reasons, the article should stay. SSantoro 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the reason it was flagged for deletion now and not before when it had another title is that, #1, the "See Also" section of the Batman article was re-organized, and #2, the newer name better reflects the article's contents. Oh, and it is largely OR. Either way, I agree with MIB that this should be merged into Frank Miller --Chris Griswold 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is original research and a tad crufty. However, it would be interesting to shrink and merge to Frank Miller (comics), but if and only if it can be sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Update. I have added the citations missing from the page in order to satisfy any and all concerns of it's unverifiability. It's all there in black and white. The DKU does exist, there are plenty of Miller quotes concerning it, and it can be found being discussed all over the internet. SSantoro 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This really feels like original synthesis. The Newsarama interview mentions ASB&R as a "Year Two", but that's the interviewer saying it and Miller doesn't achnowledge it. The Telegraph piece doesn't mention continuity at all. The only piece that ties them together is the Quick Miller Minute on Newsarama, and that doesn't mention Spawn/Batman or DKR/DK2 at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A Man In Bl♟ck said, "The Newsarama interview mentions ASB&R as a "Year Two", but that's the interviewer saying it and Miller doesn't achnowledge it." To refute, it does say: "But DC's misleading publicity is hardly Miller's fault. In his recent interviews, Miller has been quite clear that the All-Star Batman and Robin stories are part of what he calls his 'Dark Knight universe.' Hence they are not part of the official canon of DC continuity, whatever that may be this week, but are prequels to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again (see "Comics in Context" #30, 31, 34), which are clearly set in an alternate version of the DC Universe." SSantoro 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see any source but Newsarama tying Y1/HTB/ASB&R into a continuity, and absolutely nothing tying Spawn/Batman or DKR/DK2 in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • From IGN.com: "But DC's misleading publicity is hardly Miller's fault. In his recent interviews, Miller has been quite clear that the All-Star Batman and Robin stories are part of what he calls his "Dark Knight universe." Hence they are not part of the official canon of DC continuity, whatever that may be this week, but are prequels to Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again (see "Comics in Context" #30, 31, 34), which are clearly set in an alternate version of the DC Universe."[3] SSantoro 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Newsarama: "Speaking of the whole setting in time, you’ve said that this is, at least, unofficially, 'Batman: Year Two' for you…" Miller: "That’s the way I’m thinking of it, the title is definitely Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder. I love having my name on something called that. I always loved the “Boy Wonder” line, before he was turned into the Teen Wonder, and almost a “Grim Robin.” But I just love the idea of a young Robin. That’s why I created Carrie Kelly in Dark Knight - I just loved the contrast between this stocky, tough, dark adult, and a colorful little pixie running around."[4]SSantoro 23:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • He's just comparing some of his newer work to some of his older work. It's an exceptional jump to call that some sort of fictional continuity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is a difference between a follow-up work and a shared continuity. Does he actually say "shared universe," for example? --Chris Griswold 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There are multiple explicit statements by Miller himself in those articles, validating there testimony. They are all clearly in the same "universe." It is literally impossible to construct a theory to account for all of the following statements to refute the existence of the DKU, which is a term, btw, that he himself coined.SSantoro 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
          • 1. Miller: "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU. DC winds up adopting just about all of it, anyway."[5]
          • 2. Newsarama: "Speaking of the whole setting in time, you’ve said that this is, at least, unofficially, 'Batman: Year Two' for you…" Miller: "That’s the way I’m thinking of it, the title is definitely Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder."[6]
          • 3. Miller: [in reference to HTB] "If Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder is 'Batman Year Two' this is 'Batman Year 1 and ½.' It’s quite a young Batman."[7]
          • 4. Newsarama: "Given that you’ve written the later chapters of Batman’s life with Dark Knight, and you’ve written Year One, and this is the unofficial “Year Two,” do you ever entertain fantasies of saying, 'F___ it, I’m going to write my Batman from his start to his end. DC, give me ten years, and let me go nuts'?" Miller: "That kind of fantasy flits through the mind every now and then, but essentially, I write stories when I really have a story I want to tell. I wouldn’t have taken this on if I hadn’t sat down, thought about what they were offering in terms of creative freedom, setting, and everything else. After looking at it all, I realized I had a story here. It does relate to my other stories, but I like the fact that yeah, I’ve done the other bookend, but to show Batman, and more to the point, Dick Grayson becoming a hero…when we first see him, he’s a frightened, traumatized little boy. This is the story I want to tell now."[8]
          • 5. "Spawn vs. Batman is a companion piece to DC Comic's The Dark Knight Returns." (Spawn/Batman inside cover). You would have to do a lot of logic leaps to pretend he's not talking about the same thing.
            • This is really tenative. He dodges a lot of those Newsarama questions, and referring to a book as a "companion piece" doesn't mean it's in the same continuity (e.g. V For Vendetta and Miracleman, which Moore has described as companion pieces on multiple occasions). This continuity seems to exist more in the mind of one Newsarama editor's opinion than Miller's mind, and constructing these sorts of fanon continuities from works that inspired later works smacks of original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
              • After all the posted quotes from Miller himself, the link to IGN stating the same information, and evidence from within the books themselves, you continue to insist that this article "smacks" of orginal research, i.e. fabricated information. The IGN site and Newsarama even reference "Comics in Context" as further evidence of the DKU. It's even well known by the fans, and you can see this if you frequent comics forums. Miller coined the phrase DKU, discusses it periodically (in multiple sources), and clearly considers his other Batman stories as a reference point whenever he writes a new one. According to another, no longer posted, Newsarama interview, Miller stated himself that he asked DC to let him classify his works officially under the DKU label, in which he would explore his own interpretation of the DC Universe. I know this is now unverifiable since the site has been taken down. Yet to support this, I reference again when Miller said, "Anything I come up with about any of these characters is DKU."[9] This in and of itself proves the existence of the DKU, and that all of Miller's Batman stories are part of it. It can't be any clearer. SSantoro 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Frank Miller is not the publisher. DC is. DC decide which continuities tie into one-another, and which are canon. Notwithstanding the fact that Miller is the sort of person who will contradict himself in interviews over this sort of thing as the years go by (and the vagueness, as outlined by other commenters above, of some of the statements in interviews), it doesn't matter what he "intends" - it's to do with what he's commissioned to write, and what DC decide to do with it. Of all the stories mentioned in the article, Year One is the only one that takes place in official DC continuity, and DKR and DK2 are the only ones that are recognised as being in the same one as each other (if Miller has decided to go and tell his own "Year Two" with ASB&R, then he's going against everything DC publicised the All Star line as, as that line is categorically supposed to contain completely continuity-free stories, a tenet he's clearly completely reneged on). I still maintain that the article is misleading by suggesting that Year One and DKR are part of the same continuity - they are NOT. Year One is part of a continuity in which, for example, Tim Drake is the third Robin. DKR does not acknowledge Drake's existence, having Jason Todd as the second and Carrie Kelly as the third. No matter what Miller's intentions as a writer, the final say goes to the people commissioning and publishing the books - i.e. DC Comics. You mention yourself that the article used to exist perfectly fine under a different name - and frankly, I can't understand the reason for the change. "Frank Miller's Batman work" is a perfectly acceptable title and a perfectly acceptable article. "The Dark Knight Universe", however, is an inherently problematic one, because it leads to this very debate we're having here - which means it clearly isn't encyclopedic. I maintain that it's misleading, because it's based on one person's opinion of what is canonical, and also because with the recent announcement of the title of the next Batman film, it suggests a connection to that universe. Seb Patrick 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Your implication that the artist has no say over his own work and that only what DC decides matters is ludicrous. If I write a movie and publish it with MGM and then write a sequel and publish it with Fox, that does not mean that the movies are unrelated. Kevin Smith's Askewniverse is published by Miramax, Universal, and their subsidiaries. Since Miramax didn't publish Mallrats, does that mean that it has nothing to do with Clerks, despite what Miramax says? Miller's statements aren't inconsistent. He says and has always said that his Batman stories are connected. Spawn/Batman (published by IMAGE and not DC) says it's a companion piece to DKR, but according to your logic, that is impossible since DC wasn't fully in charge. Miller can certainly, without the permission of even care of DC, publish his own stories. That's why most of them are officially outside DC Continuity to begin with: Miller publishes what he wants, regardless of "official" DC Continuity. Year One contained some dramatic revisions to the DC Universe itself, and DC accepted it as tthe new origin for "Modern Age" Batman. Nevertheless, Miller is writing ASB&R to follow up Year One in his own way. The All-Star label is not undermined by this. They hired Miller and Grant Morrison to write ANY stories they wanted outside DC Continuity (i.e. giving the author's frreedom to choose). Miller chose the DKU and Morrison chose the Silver Age. Honestly, given the citations, direct quotes, and the multiple other internal Wikipedia references, it seems more like some people are in the mood to delete something, regardless of whether it requires deletion. My defense hasn't been weak or "original." I don't think it will hurt Wikipedia to leave it up, unlike a band vanity page or the like. SSantoro 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article but Merge the citable quotes into the main Frank Miller article. His opinion about his books is interesting in the context of himself as a creator, but there is no canonical basis for a "Dark Knight Universe" beyond his own opinion. The character is owned by DC Comics, not Frank Miller. As a wikipedia article this is clearly original research. -Markeer 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article and Merge the relevant cited information to Frank Miller per Markeer. I also applaud SSantaro's research here, but there's not quite enough there to say this deserves its own topic. --SevereTireDamage 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it. I'm not hellbent on keeping the article up, but I do believe that Miller's artistic intentions, as indicated in his quotes, deserve some sort of mention in some of the related articles. Though as per putting the name of an unofficial parallel storyline into an encyclopedia, that point is well taken. The thing that initially set me off was the implication that the article was based on fabricated "fanon," which is untrue. The author, not the fans, created, named, and continues to discuss the universe. Nevertheless, DC has (regrettably from my perspective) failed to give him his his own "universe" in an official, this has DC's stamp on it sort of way. Though again I wonder about Kevin Smith's View Askewniverse. The films are put out by different companies, yet maintain an inner continuity AND a Wikipedia article. "Yes," one might say, "but they are all products of View Askew Productions." Ahah! But so is Jersey Girl which, FYI, Kevin Smith and Wikipedia both mention as being OUTSIDE the View Askewniverse. That said, we really are dealing in a gray area here. SSantoro 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Miller's view of the DKU isn't encyclopedic, but could be Merged into his article. -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article. Miller has said that all of his Batman stories follow the same continuity, and his interpretation of Batman is different enough from the mainstream writers of the DCU to warrant a seperate article. --CmdrClow 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe keep the spawn stuff, merge out some of it into frank millers page but otherwise we'll have Alan Moore's DCU, Grant Morrisson's DCU, Geoff Jones DCU etc. etc. etc. Palendrom 02:06, 8 August 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.