Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhuman strength (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. I could have also easily closed as no consensus, but I felt the arguments for retention outweighed the other arguments in this case. –MuZemike 01:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Superhuman strength
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Proxy nomination for IP; stated rationale: "definitional, low content, 3 years after inconclusive deletion [discussion and touted improvement has not come."]


 * Neutral as proxy nom. – xeno talk 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction per nom of the original AfD. Seems like that would be the most reasonable spot for it.   Mauler90  talk 23:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete For all the original reasons, plus it got a 3 year repreive to be built into something and it DID NOT DO SO. Is still just a little OR stub-essay.  If someone really wants to write about this concept, they should find the right forum for that and do so.  WP is not for blog essays (and this is not even at that level).  --"The IP"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 4:24 pm, Today (UTC−7)
 * Two things: There is no deadline.  And you're part of the problem if you also didn't put any effort into trying to turn it into something during those three years.  If no-one has edited something that one wants edited, the right course of action here at Wikipedia is to boldly do it onesself, not to complain that somebody else isn't doing it.  Writing the encyclopaedia isn't Somebody Else's Problem.  Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there are going to be ample references to both the real world phenom of superhuman strength (moms pulling cars off babies), and the relevance in fiction of having characters with truly superhuman strength. Its true, this article sucks, and if there wasnt a core idea that COULD be developed, id say delete. but i think this is a valid article on 2 parallel ideas. I bet we find refs extolling the importance of such figures in our collective imagination, and the dangers of believing in such stuff too literally, from notable writers. i may actually try to help it grow.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, followup: 3.8K hits in google scholar for "superhuman strength" string. 38K for the same in google books. gsearch:   and this I think we can safely use this plethora to create an article beyond a dictionary definition.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, "moms pulling cars off babies" is covered in hysterical strength. – xeno talk 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this article you refer to has nearly zero reliable sources beyond one use of the phrase "hysterical strength" which acknowledges its not recognized medically. many links are not found. If there is actual sourcing to be found for this phrase, great, link to it from here (i havent attempted yet to research hysterical strength). but im not sure THAT article should exist (if not, then IT needs to be merged with superhuman strength), and superhuman may be a more common phrase.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete ants have proportionally superhuman strength, and that term is used to describe ant strength; chimpanzees have superhuman strength; elephants have superhuman strength. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * then we just define the use here as "fictional or real examples of people showing strength beyond what is normally possible for humans"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to an article about a list of super powers. What would that be? Oh - List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction. I like that idea. dogman15 (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per UncleG and Mercurywoodrose's followup. And even if the article continued being a stub for some more years, an improvable stub is still better than a nonexistent article. It's not malicious or wrong info anyway, so it's hurting noone. --Waldir talk 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Superhuman (disambiguation). It looks like we're heading to a no consensus on this, and I can see where this might be useful as a disambiguation page of its own-- it kind of looks like one now.  After the last nomination, which closed with the advice "rewrite or improve", this was the so-called improvement.  What can we learn from this one?  It's "employed in fiction", okay, yeah, not real.  It means "stronger than humanly possible", duh.  Examples of fiction can be found in "ancient mythologies and religions... novels, comic books, television, films, and video games".  Uh-huh.  It's "used by several characters in fantasy and sci-fi" explained as science or magic, and a "plethora of comic book superheroes and supervillains usually have a degree of super strength", the leval "can vary greatly", okay, you've still got ten more minutes... Frankly, I would rather have had the old version  rather than this.   If kept, then, for God's sake, "rewrite or improve". Mandsford 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable fictional concept. No objection to an editorial merge discussion, but there's simply no compelling reason to delete it.  It clearly can be sourced: Google News archive, Books, Scholar. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment inclined to keep, but should the concept be treated differently from other super powers? I can see arguments each way. --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable concept. Per WP:NODEADLINE, the appalling state of the article really isn't a justification to delete. Claritas § 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens and Claritas. There seems to be a movement to delete "concept" articles here at WP.  This article can be easily sourced (and should have been before nomination), it is an obviously notable meme in fiction, the nomination has not made a compelling argument to delete, and there is no deadline to fix such articles. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The irony is that the concept article got deleted nearly three years ago, back in September 2007 . When one person rewrites something beyond recognition, it's far worse than proposing to the community that it should be deleted.  The nominator is under no obligation to source an article, particularly if it's a piece of crap.  Mandsford 00:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant myself, but when i see an article poorly sourced and poorly written, with a tendency towards trivial content, i want to scrape it back to a stub and build it back slowly, from a core of a clearly understood concept. if we cannot agree on a good core for this article, i can really see the reason for deletion. i just think we CAN come up with a decent core definition for this article. maybe im wrong. I tend to respect Mandsfords thoughts at AFD, so im seriously considering them here. of course i could live with a redirect to superhuman. doesnt take a superhuman leap of logic to get that that is one valid outcome.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete but possibly redirect as discussed above. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Opting to !vote instead of close. I have to agree with Uncle G on this one. The concept itself is notable but the article does need work. Since this is a "low risk" article, WP:DEADLINE should apply. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as improvable, and clearly nptable, per the other comments. there is no deadline, which is reasonable, considering that most Wikipedia articles are in such bad shape that one could find some reason to delete them. It's a poor idea to list them for AfD in the hope of attracting attention, because they're liable to go unnotice in the  crowd & be deleted, which is the dead opposite of the right solution.    DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable aspect found in many works of fiction. Any movie review for the Hulk or various other movies while talk about the characters superhuman strength, that one of his defining characteristics.  Google news and Google book results are plenty, but no sense sorting through them all.  I doubt anyone doubts that superhuman strength is a common feature found through comic book and cartoon characters.  It was also found in many mythical and Biblical characters as well, such as Hercules and Samson.    D r e a m Focus  21:19, 6 July 2010 (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.