Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Mister Fantastic

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 08:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Mister Fantastic[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 subjects and fails to justify its existence through the reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once again, WP:GNG is determined by the existence of sources, not by whatever sources are or aren't in the article, per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NNC. The crux of this nomination is "Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe subjects", seeing as "fails to justify its existence through the reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG" is irrelevant as far as deletion goes. Dark knight 2149 22:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149:: I don't see any RS or any discussion as a group that would make it pass LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the argument is that "Sources don't exist, article fails WP:GNG, then the rationale should reflect that. "Fails to establish notability" implies that articles are being driveby nominated solely based on the state of sourcing in the article. Dark knight 2149 19:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:NFICTION/GNG, cited to WP:PRIMARY sources only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 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 15:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a basic summary to Mister Fantastic. BOZ (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article that fails the WP:GNG. The difference between an "alternate" and "main" version isn't supported by reliable third-party sources. Certainly not enough to meet our notability standards, and possibly the original interpretation of a few editors. We shouldn't create endless spinouts of mostly in universe information. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG , the article is WP:FANCRUFT. Alex-h (talk) 07:37, 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.