Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of fictional characters


 * 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. A slight majority of commentors prefers deletion, and the others say a legitimate article may be developed with proper sources. As this list currently lacks any sources or topic material of substance, I close as delete but encourage the re-creation with properly developed information that does not merely list the characters. – sgeureka t•c 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternative versions of fictional characters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing but original research unbacked by any citations to reliable sources. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep Content discussions are not viable arguments for deletion. Is the article subject notable? Yes. Is there academic literature on it? yes. on sailor moon? possibly not. But probably. Greglocock (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As an article, the subject matter is far too broad; deal with alternative versions of characters from a given book/series/universe in an article on that universe or in articles on the relevant stories/characters (i.e. Superman: Red Son and Superman: True Brit have their own pages, as do a lot of Elseworlds stories). Realistically, this is likely to become a list of lists with some passing discussion, and that would be better handled within other pages than as a separate page.  (As an addendum, I'd also note that this reeks of being a very, very bad cruft target).  Edit: Wasn't logged in when I first posted this.Tyrenon (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be a category not a list? I still think it is a viable subject for an article, but as it is is it would be better as a cat. Greglocock (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not a bad idea, and I'd definitely support this move (either in lieu of or alongside deletion of the article). If nothing else, you'd have a nice hub to look up various (published) AU stories on Superman, etc.  As an article, it is doomed to be a list of lists; as a category, it actually seems to function effectively.Tyrenon (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Its pretty much nothing but original research Toasted (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete arbitrary list of unsourced citations and if sourced would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Not notable and subjective.Curb Chain (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2012 (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.