Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batcycle

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 redirect‎ to Batman#Technology as per the other Bat-things, with the option to selectively merge content from the history at editors' discretion. Sandstein 07:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Batcycle

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure plot summary and list of apperances; the bit on development is unreferenced and there is no reception, not even any listicles. Fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE failed to find anything that's not a plot summary. Since it's just plot, not seeing what we can do here except merge a few sentences (lead?) to Batman#Technology. (If anyone cares, Batsub was just blodly blanked and redirected looong time ago without any AfD... there was also a Batboat, I think). The concepts are mentioned briefly in the suggested redirect target - that's probably enough for now... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Batman#Technology. There is at least some commentary in secondary sources on individual incarnations: [1], [2], [3], p. 70, [4], [5]. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. Some decent hits, but nowhere near enough for a viable article, though viable merge targets exist. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST. Got SIGCOV in Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide as well as an Article on the Batpod. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more out there, given this is Batman. A lack of willingness to perform improvements to an independently notable topic is not an excuse for deletion or merger, which should be done when something is non-notable or massively overlapping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but these sources are almost entirely plot summary, with the exception of the Batpod, which is dev info that feels more fitting at the respective film's article. Guidebooks really can't help with Wikipedia:SIGCOV, as they're basically wholly plot summary, failing Wikipedia:NOTPLOT, as there's no content in there that shows how the subject has had a real-world impact. You can't even argue that the fact it was included in the guidebook was noteworthy, because the guidebooks include quite literally everything Batman-related, including several subjects deemed non-notable in past AfDs, such as the Batboat mentioned above.
I will also note that this exact argument (including these exact sources, bar the Batpod one) was used in the Batboat AfD, where it was determined to redirect the article despite the presented coverage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The appearance history from Batman's Arsenal is really quite impressive. The presented sources have a lot of plot summary, but I believe all sources taken together provide enough material but also enough commentary to have a full article which also fullfills WP:NOTPLOT. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Other than plot, we just have list of appearances, and that's IMHO WP:NOTCATALOGUE (ditto if we look for and add merchandise, I am sure some exists, but...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: As just one example, something like "a bike so outrageous it’s hard to believe it was even built", a comment on the prop, not the in-universe batcycle, is neither plot summary nor list appearance to me. There are a number of such shorter commentaries in the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Fair, but if all we have are a few passing mentions like this (SIGCOV...) then I think the best we can do is to mention that such a prop existed in Batman article / tech section, with a brief comment that reviewers found it funny-looking or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The complete web article is on the batpod, so it's not a passing mention in that regard. The commentary within may be short. So I don't think a merge would be a terrible idea, therefore my weak keep. But if we look at all those sources and get, say, six sentences of comment on various incarnations in total, and an appearance section, and a plot summary balanced to this real-world content, we end up with a short by in my estimate ok article, therefore my keep !vote. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Pokelego999. We need WP:SIGCOV about this object's reception to form a separate article. I see some mentions, but recapping the plot / appearances is something more appropriate for a fan wiki than Wikipedia, which covers fictional topics in relation to the real world. A merge is a fine WP:ATD if someone wants to pick a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. Zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively or redirect. The sources are in the grey area and we don't need to delete everything. Archrogue (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.