Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Mary Jane Watson


 * 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  23:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Mary Jane Watson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is entirely WP:OR fancruft based on primary sources and a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not have sources to meet WP:GNG. BEFORE showed Fancruft/Listcruft articles.

Since this is entirely WP:OR fancruft and lacks proper sources, it should not be merged.  // Timothy ::  talk  00:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  00:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The OP seems to be nominating just about every Alternate versions article they can find. The rationale of this nomination is also identical to Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde, where I was able to find coverage from reliable third party sources, making the claims of WP:BEFORE somewhat dubious. As of now, I have no formal vote, but I might do a source check later on.  Dark knight  2149  09:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All the articles I've nominated have closed as Delete., , (group nomination of 7 articles) and others that have been nominated have also been deleted , , , , .   // Timothy ::  talk  13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't excuse or address my concern at all. If anything, it only highlights why future rediscussion is inevitable.
 * In this nomination, virtually every vote was from users known to vote "Delete/merge" on every nomination. Even skimming through it, the WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT is not difficult to spot.
 * This was closed on a whopping two votes, one of which was questionable in its reasoning.
 * With this one, the fact that you crammed eight different articles into a single nomination is the problem. In fact, at least one of those (Alternative versions of Batman) passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN rather easily.
 * This nomination failed to cite a legitimate rationale.
 * This one is fine.
 * This one also fails to cite a legitimate rationale that complies with WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, and WP:DELREASON, and also suffers from a lack of voting.
 * This is more of the same.
 * Overall, volume of nominations isn't a strong argument.  Dark knight  2149  20:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:WAF. It is not a proper content split, and the current content is not particularly worth merging. TTN (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mary Jane Watson per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mary Jane Watson and then limit to those points that can be adequately and reliably sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Nothing wrong with multiple identical nominations if the affected articles are nearly identical. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and TTN. Current content worth merging, I think not.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - If someone wanted to add any notable variants of the character that actually have some secondary sources that indicate some notability to the main Mary Jane Watson article, that would be fine. But, since this current article does not actually contain any reliable, secondary sources, there is nothing here that would really be needed or appropriate to Merge in order to do so.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge topic fails WP:GNG and WP:WAF and not an appropriate split from the main topic. No objections to expanding it, in proportion, at the main article, and someone is welcome to summarize the most relevant parts from this non-notable spinout. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - per TTN. There isn't coverage in reliable secondary sources to make this a notable topic outside of the character's main article. Any coverage should go there. Jontesta (talk) 20:46, 2 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.