Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Black Canary

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. Tone 18:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Black Canary[edit]

[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)

I PRODed this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". This was dePRODed by User:Pikavoom with an edit summary "from Black Canary#Other versions and some of this material should stay either in this article or Black Canary (where it would be overly long)." Thank you for the explanation, but I am afraid this doesn't address my PROD concerns regarding notability of this topic. Excessive plot detail belongs on fandom/wikia, I am afraid. And this is pure PLOT, no analysis, no reception, no significance shown. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much per nom. There seems to be a consistency with this kind of cruft (see, for example, List of My Hero Academia characters and its associated talk: fandom-fests such as these become troll magnets very quickly). This is the best way. ——Serial 06:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Black Canary is long enough. At the very least Merge to Black Canary#Other versions where some of this material (as you can't ignore all the alternative Black Canary versions when writing on Black Canary, some of them are significant) should be and currently points at this article. I take umbrage at Piotrus mangling my edit summary (omitting "This is a split from..."), as this article is a WP:SPLIT from Black Canary and the question here isn't notability or deletion but rather whether WP:MERGE is appropriate. Pikavoom (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article splits are justified only when splitting necessary content. This is all plot information not backed by reliable sources to establish the topic's notability. There is no particular value in merging this content, so that section should be started from scratch using summary style. TTN (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The argument that the main Black Canary article is too long is countered by the fact that this information does not actually need to be included there. None of the individuals versions are notable on their own (with the sole, possible exception of the Arrowverse version, who already has an independent article), and there are no real sources discussing the concept of her alternate versions as a group or set. A few sentence summary of their being alternate versions of the character can certainly be added to the main Black Canary article, but nothing here needs to be merged or kept to do that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN. The main article is still well within a readable size, and we shouldn't be creating endless non-notable spinouts. If you have a well sourced section that isn't just a collection of primary data, a spinout will naturally meet the WP:GNG. This one does not. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if something is actually a useful split, it passes GNG in its own right. If it does not, than it's just a bunch of useless cruft that does not need to be on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pikavoom. Dark knight 2149 06:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Shooterwalker. This article is badly sourced, in-universe fancruft and there hasn't been a good justification as to why a spinout is necessary or even a good idea. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unjustified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 1 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.