Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powers and abilities of the Hulk


 * 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 Hulk (comics).  MBisanz  talk 08:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abilities of the Hulk

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This a fork of the incredible hulk article. The folk was created because found it difficult to keep unnecessary detail out of the main article - in effect, creating a dumping group for lavish over detail about fictional in-universe events. I had a go at cleaning up the article but even in a "clean" form, the article remains and will remain an entirely in-universe perspective on fictional events supported by readings of the primary sources. The material simply doesn't exist to turn this into an article that is based on real world commentary and analysis - it cannot meet the standards that we set for articles. Indeed, it's existance requires us to turn a blind eye to the MOS, our policies on sources, our core purpose as an encyclopedia. Originally I was going to suggesting merging this article back into the main article but after spending the weekend working on it, I'm no longer convinced that serves a useful purposes and that it would be best to just write what needs to written for that article from scratch. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hulk (comics). Stifle (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Emperor (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current material was originally removed from the Hulk article as having a negative effect on that article.  It's a morass of in-universe stuff that has no place to go.  Merge is not a good answer.  Ford MF (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I originally was in favor of merging it but I don't believe a merge is suitable. It's true that most of this material can't be backed by any real world content. It's just not out there. It's also true that much of the article was taken out of the main Hulk article, making this one partially a glorified dump. The article has become almost an homage to the character. What makes the character "cool" or "incredible", such as all these examples of how physically overwhelming he is isn't very encyclopedic to me. The character's powers are simple to explain and common among fictional superhumans. As such, what's important to get across about them can be explained in the powers and abilities section of the Hulk (comics) with a lot less space.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried to fix the powers section during a major overhaul of Hulk, and instead the fork was created. Rather than perpetuate a fight back then, I let the cruft accrue here, but it's time for it to go, it's a list of amazing feats instead of out-of-universe discussion of the powers of a fictional character; the main article's powers section has far more reliable, non-comic issue citations.ThuranX (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum, I stand corrected, there is one useful quote from Greg pak there; if/when article is redirected, that one quote can/should be incorporated. Everything else can go, though. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. and struck out. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see this as no different from the other articles associated with the incredible Hulk, nor from other detailed articles about a notable fictional character. Regardless of what one may think of the subject, this particular article meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiable sources to support statements within the body of the article.  For aesthetic reasons, it doesn't work as part of the parent article.  On the other hand, whether one likes it or not, "The Hulk" is an icon that has had a devoted following for decades, and has been its own multi-million dollar industry.  Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aesthetic reasons isn't a reason to keep, it's a reason to do somethign about the ugliness. The sources aren't reliable and verifiable, just verifiable, but inherently unreliable because different writers adjust the specific upper limits of his strength to fit their stories. The status of Hulk in popular culture is thoroughly irrelevant to the discussion here. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, whether one likes it or not, "The Hulk" is an icon that has had a devoted following for decades, and has been its own multi-million dollar industry. em yes? That's why the hulk is a fit and proper subject for an article and why an article entitled "hulk merchandise" would also be. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand - which is an a sub-article that is entirely in-universe and cannot be fixed because of the very nature and subject of the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone is entitled to nominate an article an open discussion about deletion. On the other hand, nobody is entitled to dictate the terms of the discussion.  Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No one here is dictating the terms of the discussion. Noting that a comment isn't convincing or relevant hardly 'dictates the terms'. don't use bullshit accusations that we're steering or railroading to compensate for or cover a problem in your reasoning. Accept it, argue back in rational ways, or yield. ThuranX (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Thuran, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.  Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can argue what you like - we are equally entitled to point out that your comments are not relevant and do not answer the questions raised by the nomination. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any salvageable, sourced content to Hulk (comics). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Only reasonable, non-comics in-universe sourced content was Greg Pak speaking regarding the character during WWH, that has been integrated. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * MergeHis powers etc. are the basis of his character, and belong -- suitably edited-- into the main article. DGG (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--I see nothing here that has any real-world value. Whatever is worthwhile, and I don't see much, should be under the main article. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hulk (comics), as ThuranX has merged some content and the topic itself is better dealt with as a section of the main article. If reliable sources are found then later a suitable spinoff article should be made. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hulk smash merge per ThuranX. Giggy (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete honestly, I'm not sure what much more needs to be said regarding his powers in an encyclopedic context. Bruce Banner turns into a green, massively powerful, indestructible... Hulk when he's mad.  And he can jump.  Far. JuJube (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are other similarly well-referenced powers & abilities pages such as Spider-Man's powers and equipment or Batcave, and ones literally filled with thin air claims without any current sources whatsoever, such as Powers and abilities of Superman, and the entire Wikipedia comics section is littered with extremely brief and unreferenced pages for minor characters that have not appeared in any real-world movie or tv-show whatsoever. This is a completely non-harmful, versatile, and very well-referenced voluntary extra for those who wish to know more about an extremely prominent character, and the very nature and long rich history of the Hulk character makes all the mentions a very relevant extension and highlight. Nearly every single mention in the page has been thoroughly matter-of-fact referenced. Per definition Powers and abilities of Superman and all Marvel or DC Comics pages in the vein of Null, the Living Darkness or even numerous simple storyarcs such as Incredible Hulk: The End or fancruft aspects of a character such as Power Cosmic, should be greatly prioritised in a deletion order. It is extremely odd that this particular page garners such interest before all of the rest. Rather, some editors might be assigned to help clean up the page to turn more easily read and accessible. The main Hulk article is better served streamlined to strictly focus on the real-world impact or stated philosophical aspects of various interpretations, while the various sub-pages such as this, List_of_Hulk_supporting_characters, or Hulk_in_other_media go into specifics. Of note is also that a vandal 'named' User:JJonz has very long targeted and threatened said page, myself, and any editor that interferes in a host of hastily created cover identities, while similarly censoring any non-favourable references at just the Superman P&A page. (The above are strictly the ones we found and bothered to add until we lost interest, and as long as he kept making transparent edit-comments/threats) Given this experience, I can't help finding it similarly odd that a just-created, supposedly inexperienced identity decides to make his first actions into the most extreme intervention against this particular page through careful administrative jargon, while being shown as fully content to simply edit just P&A of Superman. Additionally Red Hulk editing history almost simultaneously displays two editors very much named in the standard JJonz 'hint' fashion: User:Bold Clone and User: Anon e Mouse Jr.. Dave (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument consists of "other stuff exists" and an attempt to poison the well by making this AFD about me is neither of which are convincing arguments to keep. As for the Superman Powers and abilities - that's a mess as well and I'm considering AFD that as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, if you're willing to delete P&A of Superman you're likely not JJonz at the very least, although your similar habit to ironically include the word 'please' and 'lie' in your edits does seem to fit the pattern, but yes, there are a very great array of completely unreferenced pages for storylines, minor characters, spin-off aspects and so on, so I do find it suspicious that a page that has gone to extremes with 'over-referencing' to avoid this, and even including "lower power displays" for fairness should be focused on before all of these, and if the sole reason to focus on this page is because of personal extreme bias against just powers, or even this particular character, yes that very much is a valid reason to keep, since you're per extension attacking the very structure the entire Wikipedia Comics community is built upon. In comparison this is easily one of the more ambitious displays. There is no objectively rational reason whatsoever to single it out before hundreds of comparatively irrelevant comics pages. Also, there are other parts of my past than "other stuff exists". It's a harmless appreciated feature, and does go to extremes to be matter-of-fact reliable. Dave (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the point you are missing, it's *not* over referenced, it only included one reference we give a damn about - one from a reliable third party. It's constructed entirely from primary sources to talk about entirely in-universe concerns, it's irrelevant that those are treated in a sober fashion because they don't represent a real world perspective or distance. As for a personal bias against the character - I OWN pretty much the entire run (feel free to test me if you don't believe that) of v2 and do own all of v3 - so please keep your mind-reading about my motivations to yourself. When I edit at wikipedia, I do it as an editor not as a fan or a "hater". --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is simply stating exactly what happened in the given issues without any inaccuracies whatsoever that I'm aware of. I've made a lot of effort in that regard. 3rd party sources are a valid point, given that this actually is overall Wikipedia policy, but fictional works generally make this impossible for description of happenings in various books throughout the character history, since they aren't well-referenced in mainstream media, generally not by reliable authors (We'd have to resort to brief Entertainment Weekly snippets, or even Wizard the Guide to Comics...), and handbook references should be mostly avoided unless complemented by contrasting sources, so the custom amongst most WikiProject Comics editors is to use 1st hand sources (along with recurrently sneaking in thin air claims or deliberately misleading information, which I'm noteable for being fanatic about removing wherever I notice it). If I understood him correctly User:TheBalance even once told me that he thought 1st hand references were favoured. Seriously, take a look around in the comics section and you'll find that this one is definitely in the upper level of reliability. Excepting Hulk in other media it's definitely the supplementary Hulk page most warranted to keep based upon referencing/reliability, noteworthy character aspect, and effort put into it. Well, either that, or cleanse out 98% of all American comicbook character-related pages out there. Certainly virtually every single storyline page. Dave (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, again: It could do with some serious work to make it more 'visitor-friendly', and I'm no good with that sort of 'structural common sense' thing. I just tend to fill things with lots of facts, and catch errors. I'm very into making my handicap of having limited ability to filter or lie to myself into something useful. Dave (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw: Since the note came up the article has been heavily deleted, so if anyone is interested in looking at what it was like before here is a saved copy (the first two images would likely be deleted for potential being WP:NFCC):
 * And here is the version where I tried to compress it down: Dave (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You just don't seem to grasp this - if reliable 3rd party sources don't write about something, we don't construct an article about it - that's the start, middle and end of the conversation. We use primary sources to provide a limited descriptive account and that's it. The article would be fantastic over at a marvel encyclopaedia but it's categorical fails our requirements for an article.  Well, either that, or cleanse out 98% of all American comicbook character-related pages out there. that's pretty much what needs to be done - many articles were written before we codified what wikipedia was about. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's what you intend to do, and follow through on it, you've at least convinced me that you're not JJonz and honest in your endeavour. Although it's still strange that you know policy and jargon so well, so quickly. Organising a massive move-out of all Marvel and DC pages to Wikia might be an idea. Then this page and all others would still ber available for all people who want more in-depth information. The problem would be that they'd quickly lose quality from massive fancruft. I wonder if there is some similarly regulated 'link to extended version' of Wikipedia or similar, to keep the massive fictional lexicons, and keeping regulations to maintain reliability, while making a firm note that these are not encyclopaedic per se in the Britannica manner. In any case, if the article is eventually merged into the main part (which, you know, would give me some extra free time) it would be very useful if different editors could look into my compressed version to overlook which parts that are most informative/should be kept. Meaning, my vote for keep, means a backup vote for merge, since it's not as extreme as delete. Dave (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note--that version can only be called "very compressed" if the non-compressed version was hulk-sized. Cameron Scott's argument is sound: no reliable 3rd party sources pretty much means no notability. Publish such a list as an addendum to the comic books, but don't publish it here. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I count 4 "counts as notability" references to articles, and 104 to the comics themselves, which I take it does in fact merit its existence~from that angle. Dave (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the same argument David A made on every other Hulk discussion he's ever involved in. He asserts taht because other crap exists, the crap he likes should exist too. Here, as in all other discussions, David A is insistent that sourcing statements to the comic, then inflating them with grandiose peacockery or drawn conclusions, makes a good article. when defeated there, he casts about for 'other crap exists' examples. then he resorts to deletionist/inclusionist arguments, and then he repeats as needed. The Hulk happens to be his niche, and it's for that reason that, as I stated above, I didn't push this issue before. but here we are again. Further, I have little doubt that if deleted, the page will soon reappear. I say, clean up and/or nomination for deletion the other articles as well. But let's settle this one first. ThuranX (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. That's your own seeming habitual need to use contemptous, misrepresentative, and misdirected intense venom as a first choice in nearly every single statement, as far as I remember you did in fact push the issue before, and I by no means see how being less rabid than yourself right after you've simultaneously insulted me without provocation and deleted some minor but accurate addition, equals being "defeated" to you, but it's enlightening about your mindset. Personally I had been much happier to let bygones be bygones, and only actively remembered you again when you insulted me in the Red Hulk edits, but apparently you still hold a grudge for whatever reason, as you're the one consistently attacking me, not the other way around. Also, again, I'm not deliberately inflating any of the references. I'm attempting to write them exactly as they are shown and described in the given sources. I've consistently removed dozens of exaggerations and inaccuracies, and if you believe some of them to be improperly worded it's easy enough to correct.* I'm a reasonable sort if a point is rationally dissected and handled civilly. (*Such as "more impressively" rather than say "more extremely", as a potential bad choice of words to note that continental plates are bigger than the Andes, since Cameron had a legitimate problem with this... yet somehow considered the consistently demonstrated healing-factor 'in-universe')


 * However, there are a couple of very important issues that I probably should flesh out a bit, and need to be taken into consideration by everyone here. One is that more than any other Marvel character the Hulk is defined by his tendency to perform completely outrageous and irrationally extreme 'feats of power'. Along with "the price of rage" it's one of the two most intrinsic 'points' associated with the property, so the argument that this page has less merit in itself than ones dedicated to single storyarcs and in fact _every single supplementary Hulk page_ save the "Other Media" one is utterly inane. It's not a point-trivialising "other crap exists". It's a matter of rational consistency. If the sole motivation to delete it is a personal severely biased hatred of P&A pages, or that the Hulk character is displayed as more ridiculously overpowered than one is comfortable with in certain storyarcs and reference-guides, i.e a specifically targeted hit-job, then that argument is not valid in itself. Another is that, yes I _have_ tried to make this article as well-rounded as possible, _108 sources_ are most definitely not simply cherry-picked irregularities, it's a pattern, and a history, and I've genuinely made an effort to make it as matter of fact as I can, but you haven't exactly tried to help. And perhaps the most important point, as it touches upon the very essense of what this entire issue is about, is that I _agree_ that the conclusion of uniformly consistently deleting virtually all Marvel and DC pages out there is completely rational based on the real-world Wikipedia policy. There was an editor who claimed to wipe out 500 redundant manga-related pages a week until he got tired, including lots of titles (including ones I currently like considerably better than the Hulk) enjoying enormously greater mainstream popularity than, say She-Hulk, so if a uniform move to Wikia is the intent, i.e. it's not a personally motivated hit-job, then that is a valid, founded, and pure motivation/intent, but not to target this page in particular (in which the references are technically up to B-class, but the 'reader-friendliness'/'easily digestable structure' could obviously be vastly improved by someone with the talent) while favouring a horde of unreferenced fancruft-pages. Either you target the entire section, which others have, and Cameron seems motivated to do, or you do admit that this page does hold a higher standard than the majority, and thus does not merit to be singled out unless there is a personal bias in action. Incidentally this is the way my mind-logic structure works in general. Either there exists a very solid specific foundation, or consistency demands a general approach, either of which is fine if handled carefully. Wikia has plenty of room. Specific targetting/censoring agendas solely founded on personal bias (such as that one does not like the picture from instances where the Hulk character was, in fact, written to perform all of the described thoroughly ludicrous actions, without exaggeration that I'm aware of) on the other hand are not.


 * Regarding the sidenotes, as far as I remember you were extremely vocally inflexible (and characteristically compulsively offensive) in the parting, although I personally saw it as the best solution, as you'd get to tend the main Hulk page in peace, while sub-issues were brought to alternate sources. I'm also _really_ sick of dealing with this page and its constant vandalism, and would much rather that someone else took over (preferably improving without butchering it). From your perspective a merge or deletion would likely lead to additionally having to deal with the nonsense I and Sesshomaru do. I'm also not remotely the type to set it up again 'just because', nor a weasel who uses multiple identities for the same matter. Additionally, Hulk isn't exactly my niché. I'm really much more of an anime guy nowadays, but I have remaining nostalgia for the superhero comics, recurrently check up on them, and have cleaned up inaccuracies in quite a lot of pages in the Marvel and DC sections. Dave (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments (Some of these are repeated from Talk:Hulk (comics), modified for changes in the article since I posted there.)
 * Out of story context and references: All but nil. The article reads as a break down between recap paragraphs and lists of in-story "feat" examples.
 * The few secondary source cites (4) are being used inappropriately:
 * 2 are used for feat examples in paragraphs (currently refs #11 and 24). These 2 also are positioned in such a way to imply that more information than just the comic (primary source) listed. An implication that isn't followed through on.
 * 2 are used to create a quote. (currently refs #15 and 16) These are two separate quotes from Pak and should not be edited to imply that he said them at the same time, much less in the same interview.
 * (additional points)

Well, the Hulk character is about ridiculous 'feats of power' at its essence, I would welcome help to improve the page/cut it down to its most informative essentials, after 50 sockpuppets and 1.5 years of relentless harrassment I've turned paranoid about JJonz, and I'm not attempting to mudsling, as always I've been noting down patterns I genuinely find suspicious, and as already stated Cameron already convinced me that he was a different person, and that his motivation is general. Dave (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article still reads as a fansite "greatest feats" list.
 * Last thing, and this is looking at David A's comments above and his back and forth with Cameron Scott here: Dave, stop the mudslinging. If you feel you have concrete grounds for a sockpuppet report against Cameron, file it with the difs that show an editing pattern, style and inclination comparison between him and whomever you think is socking through him. And for the record, as someone else that has run into JJonz and his socks Cameron's edits, tone, and articles edited don't match the vandal you are accusing him of being. - J Greb (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand why it was split off (as it was dragging the main article down) but it was still not the right way to go and it has just created a bigger monster that is pretty much off the leash. P&A sections on articles should be kept trimmed down and thoroughly referenced so merging this back into the original article is probably a bad idea - it doesn't seem a logical redirect (once incoming links are fixed) so just delete it (although if people want to redirect it then that is fine by me too). (Emperor (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete Without reliable secondary sources to indicate that the Hulk's powers are worth documenting in the first place (much less given their own article), this page has no reason to exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful content not already in the Hulk article, and redirect. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2008 (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.