Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Deadpool


 * 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 Deadpool. Spartaz Humbug! 07:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Deadpool

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV (all fancruft, passing mentions, etc). Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. There are no sources that discuss this as a group WP:LISTN that might justify making this into a list.  // Timothy ::  talk  11:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  11:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - completely agree with Timothy on this one Spiderone  11:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - completely disagree with Timothy on this one. That's because the claim that there are no sources which discuss this as a group is blatantly false.  Here's a selection:
 * 15 Most INSANE Alternate Versions Of Deadpool
 * The Best Alternate Versions of Deadpool
 * 8 Alternative Versions Of Deadpool Stronger Than Him (And 7 That Are Weaker)
 * 10 Insane Alternate Versions Of Deadpool You Won’t Believe Exist
 * Just How Many Deadpools Are There?
 * Favorite Alternate Reality Version of Deadpool
 * The insane history of Deadpool
 * Chimichangas! A Brief History of Deadpool in Video Games
 * How many Deadpools are there?
 * The Craziest Alternate Deadpools In Marvel Comics
 * And, for a snappy retort, there's a must-have coming soon. That's been devised to create 150,000 different versions...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Comeback Creator is a good snappy retort, you made me laugh. It's nice to experience the friendly version of Andrew :) But as for the list above, its all fancruft and this article would be great on Fandom. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy ::  talk  16:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage has been found in reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus  18:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - The above is a mostly a bunch of vapid clickbait, some of which comes from sites that have as much editorial oversight as WatchMojo. Even if it were all completely valid, it does not discuss the overall topic beyond "Deadpool is wacky." Most of these entries are for single comic characters, and the commentary they offer ranges from literal forum post, pretty much nothing, basic descriptions with no commentary, and some kind of user-ranked voting site. TTN (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Deadpool. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't fit, so it'd just be deleted and replaced with a redirect.  D r e a m Focus  22:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 6th, 9th, and 10th sources from Andrew's list are not reliable, but the rest look fine to me. Some users may have issues with those websites as sources, but I don't. Rhino131 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per TTN. WP:REFBOMBing with countless clickbait articles is not enough to turn trivial mentions into significant discussion of Deadpool's alternate versions. It's hard to imagine a circumstance in which alternate versions of a character merit an entirely separate article and cannot be mentioned in the article of that character.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although several of the sources provided by are not reliable (a forum post? Why?), this topic is in fact getting coverage.

https://www.cbr.com/alternate-deadpool-versions/

https://screenrant.com/deadpool-crazy-alternate-versions/

https://www.cbr.com/xmen-deadpool-best-worst-versions/

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

https://www.pcgamer.com/deadpool-shorts-fortnite-x-force-salute-emote/

https://www.vulture.com/2018/05/deadpool-secret-history.html

https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/04/07/deadpool-corps-1-review

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/deadpool-corps-squirrelpool/

https://www.gamesradar.com/fortnite-marvel-xmen-storm-psylocke-mystique-gwenpool-domino-nexus-war/

https://www.cbr.com/gwenpool-things-didnt-know-trivia-gwen-poole/

https://comicsalliance.com/deadpool-corps-9-exclusive/

https://www.vulture.com/2018/05/deadpool-secret-history.html


 * And as much as you guys are looking through fictional character articles for the next big deletion spree, I hate to burst your bubble, but not every "Alternate versions" is fancruft. Comic book characters usually go through multiple iterations throughout their history, and so "Other versions" sections are standard. When there is too much to cover in the base article, it is branched off into a separate article similar to Joker in other media or Spider-Man in other media.
 * You could argue that specific articles can be merged into the main article with less plot or that some of them aren't notable enough to pass WP:GNG, but nominating every single "Alternate versions" article you come across just reeks of overzealousness.
 * Case of point - nominated several of them at once within the same post and one of them was Alternate versions of Batman (which passes WP:GNG pretty easily). Yeah...  Dark  knight  2149  01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To elicit further discussion about the sources provided and why they do or don't establish notability.
 * Merge or Listify. The main issue I see is that the above sources like may be sufficient for a list, but not for an article. This might be salvagable, alongside few other alternative versions articles, if it is properly renamed, but frankly I don't see why this cannot be summarized and merged into the main article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Judging from the deletion rationales, it seems the nominators are already regarding these as lists.  Dark knight  2149  02:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Most of the sources here are not reliable sources that should be given legitimacy on Wikipedia. There are a few passing mentions, but not enough to create a stand-alone article, certainly not with this much unsourced/primary material. It's possible to clean up and summarize this, with a few WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS from sources, to merge into another article that meets the WP:GNG. But as is, there is not significant coverage to justify its own separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 12 sources above that are from reliable third party news sources (and recognised as such by the community) and the majority of them certainly can't be construed as "trivial mentions". If you take issue with the reliability of sources vetted by the community, there is a noticeboard for that.  Dark knight  2149  04:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or merge, I looked through a lot of the sources provided by both Andrew and Darkknight2149. I just don't find any of them compelling for notability them though nice 99% (or all) of them are just top lists that very briefly mention the alternative versions. So, I don't think they or the subject passes the in-depth coverage clause to the notability guidelines. I'd be willing to change my opinion if there was a serious article about the alternatives though. It's highly possible one of the sources was, but that I just missed it. Although, it would take more then one to pass WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge I can see how this is redundant with the Deadpool article with not much to cover outside of various plot summaries and excerpts. But there has been a consistent practice to merge comic characters with similar non-notable spinouts. See the AFDs for: Gambit, Storm, Jean Grey, Venom, The Thing, and Rogue, all of which were merged or redirected. Daredevil was deleted, but that's an outlier. I'm sure I missed a few others. I think we should always strive to WP:PRESERVE and use alternatives to deletion. Archrogue (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge if it helps close this discussion. Deleting or redirecting are also valid but merge seems to be the most conciliatory approach. Allow editors to use our usual editing processes to determine how much (or how little) content should be included in the main Deadpool article. Even after a review of the sources, there is nothing detailed or reliable enough to establish independent notability for this, distinct from Deadpool. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.