Batboat: Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire.  It has no independent reliable sources.  There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc.  Jontesta ( talk ) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Jontesta ( talk ) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant Redirect to Batman#Technology as suggested below.  Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS .  -- Softlavender ( talk ) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ; edited 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , Video games ,  and Comics and animation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances.  I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace , where it can be further researched-on and improved.  It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is.  Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace.  MK at your service.  12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects.  Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc.  Softlavender ( talk ) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile , this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources.  If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology -I had already stated in my previous comment that I was fine with Redirecting if someone identified a good target, but just to help make it clearer, I'm striking my Delete suggestion to an explicit Redirect recommendation instead.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft.  Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve...  Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Revising stance.  I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at Batman#Technology .  I don't see any "size" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal , Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight , Slashfilm (?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture.  Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE , refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me.  Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information.  The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever .  None of these show any independent coverage from the source.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki.  DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley , a known encyclopedia publisher.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books.  I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second.  Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary.  The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE , but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work.  Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article.  If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here.  I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @ Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a "sources must exist" argument.  I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How have your sources in any way proven notability?  Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies.  There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article.  I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat.  Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series , a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology , where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile.  There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted.  Softlavender ( talk ) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article.  It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang , Batsuit , Batmobile , Bat-Signal , and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing.  Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion.  Creating Technology of Batman as a WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology as an alternative to deletion.  If Technology of Batman is ever created with a mention of Batboat, it can be then redirected there.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology for now, then merge the contents of the article to Technology of Batman when it is created.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 04:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No consensus yet.  Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology .  This term can be mentioned there, but stand-alone GNG is too weak for an article.  WP:FANCRUFT .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology .  The article isn't about a coherent topic, and doesn't have enough evidence of notability.  There is a logical redirect target that covers Batman's gadgets in a more encyclopedic way.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect