Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs


 * 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. 1ne 00:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Fantastic Four, issue number 1 cover spoofs
It's a terrible article anyway, but the whole idea seems based on opinion and Original Research. What constitutes a "spoof" is often largely subjective. (What If #36, for example, is most definitely not a spoof, because there's nothing humorous or satirical about it.) Crabapplecove 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a list of every parody of every item ever created. I don't even know if a comicwiki would let this fly.  Course if they did let it fly, it would need a cape. :)  -- MrDolomite | Talk 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are we allowed to link to WP:NOT and say that "WP is not.." whatever we feel like, even when it's not explicitly listed on that page? Can I say that WP is not a tuna fish sandwich submerged in a bathtub full of mineral spirits? -- Plutor 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - My apologies for misguided humor, I knew which one I was thinking of when I commented. The correct justification for my comment is WP:NOT, with the caveat that this is not an exhaustive list per "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not" -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment was also a poorly composed joke. I knew which explicit rule you were referring to.  Apologies all around!  -- Plutor 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with swipe (comics). MrDolomite is right they are not spoofs, rather they are often an homage. The list isn't necessarily Original Research because there are forum discussions that document swipes (see links at the end of the swipe page). Journeyman 07:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Save&mdash;I think the list is notable and interesting, though perhaps homage is a better term. I don't like swipe, because that implies that it was stolen or copied out of laziness. Ragdoll 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Journeyman. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to have small sub-sections for the swipe page for the covers that have been homaged/copied so many times that the amount of swiping itself is notable, as FF#1 certainly qualifies. However the article as it is isn't enough to justify its own article. --SevereTireDamage 04:55, 25 July 2006 (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.