Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of fictional characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 6 February 2012 (Relisting debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Alternative versions of fictional characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but unreferenced original research and synthesis. No indications of the notability of the subject, just indiscriminate lists of ideas/concepts/characters already covered in their respective articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing but original research unbacked by any citations to reliable sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If trimmed sufficiently, it becomes simply a list of lists. I agree that it's incomplete, but I don't see how its "indiscriminate" in any meaningful sense. Again, citations are in the target articles, their lack here is not evidence of an absence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Despite being entirely unsourced, there is the basis of an article here, and we don't seem to have any other on this precise topic. But the creator of this one needs to decide whether it's an article or a list. If it's an article, it should have some prose content and references to sources describing the concept. If it's a list, it should have 'List' in the title and clear inclusion criteria. At the moment, it's somewhere in between. Robofish (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]