Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Supergirl

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 merge to Supergirl. There is a strong consensus that this topic should be covered at the main article of the character. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Supergirl[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)

Overly in-depth plot content fork that fails WP:NOTPLOT and fails to establish its own notability independent of the main article per WP:GNG. Supergirl (disambiguation) exists to cover characters that have their own articles. There's no need to list every individual minor variance on a general encyclopedia, and there is no reason that this cannot be properly summarized as it should per WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Supergirl That however applies only to the small referenced part of the article, the unreferenced part should not be merged per WP:V. Then this can be deleted, no need for a redirect, the name is not likely to be searchable, as the concept has zero stand-alone notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced material to the Supergirl article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As the nominator has been informed before, "article doesn't establish notability" and "there's too much plot" are not legitimate reasons for deletion. I would encourage them to better understand deletion criteria. As for this supposedly not being notable, there has never been one particular Supergirl. The character has been reworked many times, reimagined, retconned into separate characters, and the original Supergirl wasn't even the version we know today. The likes of Supergirl (Kara Zor-El), Power Girl, Supergirl (Matrix), and Supergirl (Linda Danvers) are not just generic alternate versions, they were all the primary version of the character at one point or another (mostly because DC didn't know what to do with her). This is integral to the character's history and the fact that so many of them have articles of their own is further evidence that this article (which happens to be a hub article) is notable. It's impossible to find a source discussing Supergirl's history that doesn't also go into heavy detail and commentary about the alternate versions.

https://www.cbr.com/supergirl-death-of-superman-forgotten-hero/

https://www.tor.com/2015/10/23/supergirl-a-brief-history-of-the-last-daughter-of-krypton/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Supergirl

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/supergirl-the-history-of-the-newest-dc-tv-star/

https://www.polygon.com/comics/2016/11/30/13765684/supergirl-history-power-girl\

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a595503/supergirl-comic-book-origins-and-shots-at-screen-stardom/

https://www.cbr.com/every-supergirl-ranked/

https://comicbook.com/news/just-how-many-supergirls-are-there-/

https://nerdist.com/article/supergirl-live-action-film-which-version/

https://screenrant.com/dc-supergirl-first-version-comics/

I would also encourage the nominator to stop using "alternate versions" as an excuse to nominate articles, and to stop looking for every minor excuse to nominate an article. Fiction is covered on Wikipedia, so subjective declarations of unimportance ("There's no need to list every individual minor variance on a general encyclopedia (even if it passes GNG apparently)") don't matter. A current revision of an article being poorly written, mostly plot, or even poorly sourced in itself is not a reason to delete. This clearly passes WP:LISTN. Dark knight 2149 06:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these major alternate versions also have their own articles and can contain their own publication history. This article is a list of minor appearances with zero need to exist. The random mishmash of links you've posted does nothing other than affirm that the major individual versions having articles makes sense. If there's some need to have a "History of Supergirl" separate article for some reason, this article is not that and will never be that article. This is not a matter of cleanup or anything of the like. This is just a conceptually flawed article expanding on plot that needs to be summarized in the main article(s). The disambiguation page otherwise is suitable for those with actual articles. TTN (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the main article, your argument makes even less sense because it already covers all the major versions, so there is no particular reason to even mention them in this article. That means any source mentioning them is useless to whatever point you're trying to make. TTN (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main character articles and re-treads most of the same ground, with no sources that really distinguish this as a separately notable topic. I would also support deletion as this is completely cited to primary sources, or trivial mentions that really refer to the notable fiction more than the non-notable character. But WP:ATD are always welcome when the consensus is pointing that way. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Supergirl article - yet another minor content article about superheroes - Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This article breaks NOTPLOT and is massive CRUFT. Wikipedia does not - and should not - feature every last minute detail of fictional universes and has safeguards against it for a reason doktorb _words^deeds 13:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of topics that cover the same subject matter, and this merely does the same thing without separately meeting the WP:GNG or WP:NOT#PLOT. Jontesta (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a content fork. DarkKnight is correct in his assessment, but I believe his argument makes a strong case for merging. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 27 November 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.