Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of the Punisher


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of the Punisher

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnecessary plot dump article split that fails WP:NOTPLOT. The general topic does not establish notability per WP:GNG. Plot info should be summarized per WP:WAF. This really does not seem like it would be worthwhile to merge. It would be better to start anew in the main article using proper summary style. TTN (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. Article is a CONTENTFORK and does not meet GNG, BEFORE showed only fancruft articles. Article is entirely OR and SYNTH, so there is nothing worth merging. If someone ever creates content at main article that is sourced properly a redirect could be created then, but as of right now, nothing is there, nothing here that is not OR or is sourced appropriate for a merge, so a redirect is meaningless.   // Timothy ::  talk  13:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Punisher per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge what seems due enough to Punisher, then delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Why are we wasting time with dozens of individual nominations when it seems to be the broad consensus that all these should be deleted?★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've found in the space of fiction that someone will pop out of the woodwork to revert any BOLD changes and thus force an AfD for each anyway. Certainly might not hurt to try, but I won't bother. TTN (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I agree, a few of them are probably keeps, but the ones being nominated are all OR SYNTH CONTENTFORKS. But I did a group nom and it received a number of complaints.  // Timothy ::  talk  19:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Seems to be entirely fancruft/primary sourced, I don't see anything that necessitates a merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, practically everything here is sourced to primary sources, meaning that it fails both WP:LISTN and WP:PLOT, and also means there is nothing to merge, as what little in the way of secondary sources there are provide trivial information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as a non-notable content fork. Everything here is sourced to primary sources, so it fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:59, 1 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.