Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Hawkeye

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 08:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Hawkeye[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)

Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe details and fails to justify its existence through reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a basic summary to Hawkeye (Clint Barton). BOZ (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hawkeye. This content forking has become excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Hawkeye. Most of these versions are not notable, only appearing, sometimes just briefly, in a single issue or storyline. The few that do have notability can be easily covered as part of Hawkeye's main article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After participating in a number of similar AFDs, I'm leaning more towards delete now. While I still think a couple sentence summary could be added to the main Hawkeye article, none of the content currently in the article is really appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a compromise. Article does not meet the WP:GNG and is overwhelmingly cited to primary sources, where third party sources are needed to write some meaningful context and verify its WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:22, 31 August 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.