Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman (TA)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Batman (TA)

Batman (TA) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) –

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Looks like a nonsense, possibly BJAON article (especially the second sentence of the lead). Only source is given an online forum. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if accurate, the notion is not notable.--Berig (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable concept, likely a silly hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Holy Black Monday, Batman, Delete DCEdwards1966 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The link in the article providing a tentative source for this concept has been recently updated. Unfortunately, the current alleged source is a blog posting about the deletion debate, not a reliable source for the usage of the term. (Babelfish-translated page here) When I attempted to google-search the term, I came up empty. Nor is it in any of my finance texts. Rossami (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't limited to the Netherlands -- the chart discussed here was being touted by a guy who kept showing it on CNBC, and there are a few blogs that discuss that one specifically. I've heard the term and seen examples before, not always in relationship to this particular interpretation, but it doesn't seem to be notable per reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete For lack of reliable sources. Does provide interesting pic though... RC-0722 247.5/1 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny but not notable. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like an interesting hoax, but it might be an article that would have been kept if there were even one source for the claims. Imagine if this were true! You would know exactly when you needed to sell on the Netherlands Stock Exchange. "Royal Dutch Shell hit its second spike in prices, a sure sign that the price is about to...'batman'. Panic is reported in Amsterdam...and Gotham City." Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I actually don't believe that this is a hoax. I know people who really believe that stocks show this pattern. People believe lots of silly things about stocks. Those beliefs are the basis of most technical analysis. They are wrong (most easily demonstrated by the fact that they're not rich) but they are sincere in their beliefs. My concern with this article has always been an inability to reliably source the use of the word "Batman" to the belief about this pattern and an inability to show that this particular belief is any more notable than the other technical analysis theories. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nor do I think this is a hoax, anymore than any other stock theory is a hoax. But stock theories are a dime a dozen. --Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - probably not a hoax but not notable. Might be better suited in Wiktionary, although that may be a stretch, too. Merenta (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (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.