Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Black Panther

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. Sandstein 07:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Black Panther

[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)

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV (all fancruft, passing mentions, etc). Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. There are no sources that discuss this as a group WP:LISTN that might justify making this into a list.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment (post nom) If appropriate sourcing can be found, I have no objection to a merge; but it would need to be sourced properly. // Timothy :: talk 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

// Timothy :: talk 14:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a basic summary to Black Panther (Marvel Comics) and the other associated articles. BOZ (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can certainly appreciate wanting to limit the bureaucracy of needing to create a separate discussion for each of these similar articles, I'm afraid that this particular grouping is going to inevitably result in a WP:TRAINWRECK, as I imagine characters such as Batman and Captain America are going to cause considerable more debate and argument than characters like Riddler and Beast. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma:: I did think of that and it's a valid concern. What made me try a group is the issues related to needing AfD are common to all the articles. I didn't nominate more because I saw this as a test of a group nomination. There very well might be sources I didn't find for some, and this might not work entirely, but the closer might be able to find a good resolution if there is a general consensus on most of the articles. But I acknowledge this is a valid concern. // Timothy :: talk 16:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. TTN (and some of the same recurring voters) seems to operating under the assumption that every content fork with the word "Alternative versions" in the title is automatic fancruft by definition, which is complete bollucks (Alternative versions of Batman alone is proof of that). If this banal proposal actually passes, I'll have to include all of these articles in with Judge Death and Goblin (Marvel Comics) in the list of articles that need to be rediscussed due to botched and poorly handled spam-AfDs. Dark knight 2149 19:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all - These are completely unnecessary splits for the purpose of shoving off overly in-depth plot information, none of which appear to be backed by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Batman and Superman are the only two I was thinking might have actual justification for articles, but it would be more of a scholarly discussion on the various interpretations and differences in personality and character. I have no idea if sources actually exist to back such a topic, so the current rendition of the Batman article definitely does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I read a thoughtful article once about the various incarnations of Batman. It discussed how the premise was a universal one that could be successfully applied to virtually any time or place in a way that Iron Man or Captain America couldn't. I don't recall where it was, other than it was in print, and I don't think it would justify the list we currently have. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read several. Alternative versions of Batman is also a lot more than just plot. Dark knight 2149 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has just reached the point of being absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yeah, I would split this up into about several separate nominations. "Alternate versions" content forks are not automatically fancruft by definition (especially for more iconic characters like the Riddler and Captain America), so I would suggest making the case for each. Case of point - Alternative versions of Batman doesn't pass WP:GNG? Really? Did you even look, lol. Dark knight 2149 19:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bundled nominations are not helpful but almost all of them are clear fails of GNG and such. Through it may be better to have Batman/CA in their own discussions, those have a slightly higher chance of getting a source or two. But even then, merge would be best. This is just excessive fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't checked for Captain America, but for Batman, there's a lot more than just two of them (the topic is covered extensively by media outlets). An administrator can go ahead and close this, but I can guarantee you that almost all of these are getting added to the rediscussion pile. Dark knight 2149 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - excessive fancruft with zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:31, 9 September 2020 (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.