Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wonder Woman

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 keep. John254 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Wonder Woman[edit]

Per WP:NOT. There's some notable creator commentary here and there, but its mostly just plot summary of numerous story arcs involving the character written from an in-universe perspective. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination states that the article contains notable content and so its proposition that this content should be summarily deleted is manifestly absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A few sentences that could easily be in the main article doesn't save the rest of this rambling plot summary. --Phirazo 02:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article has to be completely without merit for deletion to be acceptable since otherwise we must merge the good content in order to preserve the moral and legal rights of the contributing editors per GFDL#Conditions. Since both you and the nominator agree that this article contains content which we should preserve, you are saying that we should not delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered in Wonder Woman#Character History. There is no need to merge. --Phirazo 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Ford MF (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per nom. Biographical history of one of the oldest and most durable characters in modern fiction. Ford MF (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the point of having 35k of plot summary with only five or so cited real world references and commentary. Just reduce the plot summary and merge them to Wonder Woman. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IDONTSEETHEPOINT is not a valid rationale for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but my rationale is WP:NOT. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there an article for the Non-fictional history of Wonder Woman??--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes:- Wonder Woman#Publication_history. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change the name to History of Wonder Woman, the word "Fictional" is going to lead to more AfDs. There are many books on the subject, so this article could be made into an FA with as many sources as we want. I'll add one for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As a breakout article. In addition, there are plenty of sources and whole books on the topic. Clearly meets WP:N on its own. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot summary. The broad strokes, especially from the 60's, can be covered in the main article. --Phirazo 02:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it about the 60s that make them less worthy of coverage? Ford MF (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm arguing the opposite. Delete this article, and cover the important points of her fictional history in the article. The 60's are important to her fictional (and real world) history, so they should be covered. However, a spin-out consisting entirely of plot summary is excessive. --Phirazo 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely. WW is a crucial and vital character, and this article mostly (probably needs some more work) conforms to the out-of-universe 'real world' tone required of such articles. The character has proven, long-standing notability, and requires a separate summation of her history lest the main article become unwieldly.
- This absolutely falls under the third level of the Wikipedia:Summary style#Levels of desired details guideline: #3 'For more information, see the tailored, lengthy summary-article.'
- If doubt still exists over the core validity of this page, then the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#List of exemplary articles offers Pauline Fowler and Padmé Amidala (among others) as templates. This article on Wonder Woman is almost to the level of those two - infinitely less notable and important - fictional women, and should with a little bit of work surpass them. ntnon (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Niether Pauline Fowler or Padmé Amidala have separate fictional histories. Part of the reason I was opposed to the FA nom of Pauline Fowler was due to its overly long plot summary. --Phirazo 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a model of what fictional biographies should be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As this is a WP:Split form the Wonder Woman page. This page was originally split off due to size reasons, and while clearly some trimming could make the size more managable, there is no reason to delete a this page specifically due to the iconic nature of the character. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned here, summary style is not a free pass. --Phirazo 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the current consensus favors keeping this article, keep in mind this doesn't mean that it needs to stay unchanged. It has to be rewritten to comfort with a non-in-universe perspective as perWP:WAF. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT, if you want to team up I'm willing to help. - 15:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Notable info on a notable character? No brainer. --mordicai. (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2008 (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.