Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of the Human Torch


 * 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. Ping me if content needs to be checked for merging. Tone 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of the Human Torch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe details and fails to justify its existence through reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. I don't even know if it's possible to establish independent notability for such a split because any sources, should they even exist, would likely be weighted towards one particular interpretation or another rather than the whole grouping. This should be maybe a paragraph in the main article at best, but I don't think any existing content is worthy of being merged. It should be started from scratch. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge a basic summary to Human Torch. BOZ (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge if anyone thinks there is referenced content to be rescued. The entire Category:Alternative versions of comics characters likely needs depopulating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Arrticle seems like all WP:OR  // Timothy ::  talk  13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as a compromise. The main character article is still well within WP:SIZE recommendations, and this spinout is both short and non-WP:NOTABLE. There's no sense in spinning out sections that are only sourced to primary sources, when policy is to shorten and summarize, according to WP:PLOT and WP:DUE. If several sections of the main article grow with some third party sources for context, those might eventually be candidates for spin-outs that would meet the WP:GNG. But not yet. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:07, 31 August 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.