Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Doctor Doom


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Doctor Doom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As with the various other AfDs on these topics, this is an unnecessary plot split that fails WP:NOTPLOT. It does not possess non-trivial coverage needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. It should be summarized in the main topic, but there really isn't any worth in merging the existing content. TTN (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Doctor Doom per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge referenced content as suggested above. No evidence this merits a stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Not really anything to merge when the article is WP:ALLPLOT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as per consensus. The only coverage is plot information which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. No non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability as asked by the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete': per nom and Jontesta. WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't meet the WP:GNG.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as this fails WP:GNG. There is nothing to merge as this is already covered at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I have no objection to information on particularly notable versions of Doom that have been documented in reliable, secondary sources being added to Doctor Doom, information from this article should not be merged there in order to do so, as there are no secondary sources being used here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Doctor Doom; this isn't notable in its own right and I suspect it is only a separate article in the first place due to its extreme length. jp×g 16:33, 23 November 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.