Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhuman strength


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep but rewrite or improve. MastCell Talk 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Superhuman strength

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I've tried saving this article but it is just on a steady course into a long list of random fictional "super strong" characters favoured by individual editors. Non-encyclopedic, no academic discussion, limited to original media sources. Redirect to List of comic book superpowers. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nominator. I also found it confusing that many of the characters listed are not "human". I expected an encyclopedic topic with this title on notable feats of superhuman strength undertaken by people through history. The fact that the article title makes no reference to fiction makes this particularly difficult. The Redirect looks a sound proposal. --Dweller 18:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep / rewrite - I don't see anything essentially wrong with the article. It's not a crufty list, has adequate references, I do think that it needs more information in-universe style and comparability to real-life "super" strength. Other than that it's fine, is there something amiss here? Lord Sesshomaru 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, this was attempted but there are simply no academic of media sources which discuss this as a real concept.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There's no real topic here, just an accumulation of loosely related detail. Mowsbury 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep have a look at the what links here, its probably used as a link from every superhero fictional character with superhuman strength. To delete this article could mean having to rewrite a definition of superhuman strength in every single one of these articles.KTo288 15:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Superhuman strength has no consistent definition; it means something different in every context. We don't need an extended article to deal with a dictionary definition (i.e. "stronger than a human"). --Eyrian 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have a better idea — instead of merging it or anything like that, how about we just place the rewrite on top? This is a notable feat in many works of fiction and what I believe is needed is more time to maintain this page per WP:WAF style. The In-universe tag would have to be put on the article also. Any other ideas? Lord Sesshomaru 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Citi Cat   ♫  23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Sesshomaru. Much of the content appears to have been sourced, although some improvement is still needed, as well as an in-universe tag. -- B figura (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No opinion on this, other than that I enjoyed where the author writes, "These are only a handful of the most well known from the vast number of characters with greater than human strength" and then lists about 50 different persons. How can you have so much in a "handful"?  Superhuman strength, of course.... Mandsford 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial, and OR. References go to primary sources, from which original interpretation is derived. --Eyrian 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Same logic as above - The Hulk reference goes to The Hulk. How may sources are books that discuss Superhuman Strength? MarkinBoston 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite - seems like a valid subject for an article, just needs some work. The listy stuff can probably go. I would investigate using some of the Science Of Superhero type books as sources. Artw 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be original research without proper academic sources on the subject. ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A worthwhile topic, though listing every super-strong superhero (almost all of them) would be overkill.RandomCritic 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the current article is far from perfect, it is a subject which is deserving of a presence on the wiki. The community would be served best by keeping it, and posting a notice on the page indicating that there are potential violations of the style guide and WP:NOT.  The article is certainly salvageable and should not be deleted because some contributors continue to insert OR and trivia into it.  -Interested2 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Find an example of out-of-universe notability on the subject. Merging into the list of superpowers would cover the topic sufficiently.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: |Teacher Response to Superhero Play: To Ban or Not to Ban?; Childhood Education, Vol. 74, 1997. Or perhaps | The Homeric Way of War: The 'Iliad' and the Hoplite Phalanx (II); Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser., Vol. 41, No. 2 (Oct., 1994), pp. 131-155 better suits your fancy.  Maybe |Ketamine Dependence in Anesthesia Providers; Psychosomatics 40:356-359, August 1999.  Superhuman strength is not only a fantasy construct but a concept in nanotech development, drug research, and hardware such as powered exoskeletons.  If you prefer mainstream media discussions on the subject of superheros and superhuman strength as opposed to scholarly articles relating to the subject, I'll be happy to provide those too. -Interested2 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider any of those sources at all sufficient, but whatever. If a lot of people like it, that's all that matters, right?~ZytheTalk to me! 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you find these sources insufficient, I suggest that you either demonstrate why or refute my statement that superhuman strength is an area being pursued in drug research, nanotech development, and military hardware. Whatever you do, don't just dismiss my arguments on the basis of "I think you just like it".  Invoking Wikipolicy to stifle debate and cast those who disagree with you as rules-weak editors is not constructive in the least.  -Interested2 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: After further research on the subject, I feel I must revise my opinion to that of Strong Keep. There is enough real-world relevance to this topic that the article should be kept and revised to include it.  -Interested2 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite agreed with Sesshomaru. C'mon this is not crufty list and can be improved. Carlosguitar 14:11, 31 August 2007 (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.