Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Professor X


 * 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 Professor X.  Sandstein  16:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Professor X

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnecessary article split that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Per WP:WAF, this should have been summarized in the main article rather than split. I don't see any use in merging because it is much easier to just start from scratch than condense unweildly plot information. TTN (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

click, click thou this a mirror site, click, click, here and click. I believed little of this can be OK. ( F5pillar ---/  'Messager🖋📩 ) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Professor X per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep is better with maintenance templates rather than merger of deletion, here are some sources which I can prove is OK;
 * Trivial top X lists from less than reliable sources and a literal Fandom wiki do not constitute significant coverage on the topic. TTN (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Screen Rant and Comic Book Resources are both reliable news publications, and are considered such by the community. A lack of familiarity with them isn't an argument. If you have a problem with them, the proper venue is WP:RSN.  Dark knight  2149  23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Only two of those sources (Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant) are considered reliable news publications on Wikipedia. You need more than two sources to prove that this passes WP:LISTN.  Dark knight  2149  23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge as is the consensus at other similar AFDs. This is a non-notable WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of direct detailed coverage in reliable third party sources. Material sourced to fan wikis should be burned with fire. Primary sourced plot material should be covered in context as part of a proper article about Professor X or the X-Men series. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not every Alternate versions article fails GNG, and this WP:SUPPORT argument has already been dismantled on other threads.  Dark knight  2149  23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Professor X. No evidence this merits a stand-alone article per WP:GNG/NFICTION. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't think there is enough sourcing to split it from the main article but it can be covered there so we don't lose the content Spudlace (talk) 07:22, 10 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.