- 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 redirect to Kitty Pride#Other versions. Any usable content may be merged from the page history. T. Canens ( talk) 02:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is entirely WP:OR based on primary sources. and a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not have sources to meet WP:GNG. BEFORE showed Fancruft/Listcruft articles.
Since this is entirely WP:OR fancruft and lacks proper sources, it should not be merged. // Timothy :: talk 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - This topic has been discussed by multiple reliable (and community-vetted) third party publications.
https://www.cbr.com/kitty-pryde-x-men-powerful-character/
https://www.cbr.com/marvel-xmen-kitty-pryde-love-interests-ranked/
https://screenrant.com/kitty-pryde-marvel-love-triangle-comic/
https://comicsalliance.com/unsinkable-ship-kitty-illyana-rachel/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-spider-women-of-all-time-ranked-1796904543
https://film.avclub.com/a-brief-history-of-the-alternate-histories-of-the-x-men-1798268811
- The OP nominating every Alternate versions article indiscriminately (with the same copy/paste rationale) is also cause for concern, especially after
this post, which included at least one article that passed
WP:GNG (
Alternative versions of Batman), all of which are getting renominated at some point as clean-up.
Dark
knight
2149
09:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149, Nonsense, all the articles I've nominated have closed as Delete. [1], [2], [3] (group nomination of 7 articles) and others that have been nominated have also been deleted [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
- The article you claim passed WP:GNG (Alternative versions of Batman) was deleted.
- You don't have an answer to the nomination rationale, so you simply post ad an hominem attack. The articles are OR, they are a content fork, Fancruft/Listcruft articles sources do not meet GNG for notability. //
Timothy ::
talk
13:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was deleted on bandwagon voting after you cramed eight different articles into a single nomination. The problem is that you are assuming every article called Alternate versions is automatically fancruft or doesn't have coverage. I'm not making that up, it has been stated both in the vote below and in past nominations (note that both the nomination linked and several of the votes failed WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:ITSCRUFT).
- Likewise, what is your response to the six different articles from reliable third party news sites listed above? The Hollywood Reporter certainly is not a "fancruft source", as you claim above. Screen Rant is a reliable news source. Comic Book Resources is a reliable news source. IO9 is a reliable news source. Comics Alliance is a reliable news source. AV Club is a reliable news source. Where are these fancruft sources you speak of?
- If something has enough coverage, it's notable, regardless of if the article is all plot ( WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:RUBBISH) or has Alternate versions in the title. Period, full stop. Claiming that they are all fancruft because of the title is hardly constructive and it's why I am going to renominate most of these in the future. Dark knight 2149 19:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The overall topic of "alternative versions of the character" is not given enough attention in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. It should be summarized in the main per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. The retention of content is unnecessary due to it being 100% plot information. It should be started anew. TTN ( talk) 13:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Kitty Pryde per WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Selective Merge. Ignoring the stuff about previous nominations of similar articles as irrelevant to this nomination, and having looked at most of the sources provided here (some my office firewall won't allow), I see little to suggest that the topic of Alternative Versions of Kitty Pryde is notable. I do see evidence that Kitty Pryde is notable, that alternative versions of the X-Men are notable, and probably Ultimate Kitty and Days of Future Past are worthy of being mentioned in the parent article. Most of the rest of this can be dumped. -- Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 ( talk) 08:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Kitty Pride#Other versions, there is no reason for this to be a split from the main article since it is nowhere near the amount of prose where a split would be necessary. I would have suggested a merge, but there is no content here worth merging, as it is all in-universe information sourced to primary sources, an expanded section will have to be written from scratch. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Nothing wrong with multiple identical nominations if the affected articles are nearly identical. And the sources given by DN seem to be primarily about the character, with only a passing mention here and there to her 'alternate versions'. No need for a dedicated fancruft/plot-only subarticle. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge I can see how this is redundant with the Kitty Pryde article with not much to cover outside of various plot summaries and excerpts. But there has been a consistent practice to merge comic characters with similar non-notable spinouts. See the AFDs for: Gambit, Storm, Jean Grey, Venom, The Thing, and Rogue, all of which were merged or redirected. Daredevil was deleted, but that's an outlier. I'm sure I missed a few others. I think we should always strive to WP:PRESERVE and use alternatives to deletion. (Pardon the copy-paste rationale, which I used at a similar AFD for Deadpool, but the rationale is truly about consistent best practice across many similar articles). Archrogue ( talk) 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merge or delete due to a lack of coverage in third party sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. It's all sourced to primary sources and there's nothing to merge, but would support some kind of summarizing if an editor is willing to take that on. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:07, 30 September 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.
- 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 redirect to Kitty Pride#Other versions. Any usable content may be merged from the page history. T. Canens ( talk) 02:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is entirely WP:OR based on primary sources. and a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not have sources to meet WP:GNG. BEFORE showed Fancruft/Listcruft articles.
Since this is entirely WP:OR fancruft and lacks proper sources, it should not be merged. // Timothy :: talk 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - This topic has been discussed by multiple reliable (and community-vetted) third party publications.
https://www.cbr.com/kitty-pryde-x-men-powerful-character/
https://www.cbr.com/marvel-xmen-kitty-pryde-love-interests-ranked/
https://screenrant.com/kitty-pryde-marvel-love-triangle-comic/
https://comicsalliance.com/unsinkable-ship-kitty-illyana-rachel/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-spider-women-of-all-time-ranked-1796904543
https://film.avclub.com/a-brief-history-of-the-alternate-histories-of-the-x-men-1798268811
- The OP nominating every Alternate versions article indiscriminately (with the same copy/paste rationale) is also cause for concern, especially after
this post, which included at least one article that passed
WP:GNG (
Alternative versions of Batman), all of which are getting renominated at some point as clean-up.
Dark
knight
2149
09:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Darkknight2149, Nonsense, all the articles I've nominated have closed as Delete. [1], [2], [3] (group nomination of 7 articles) and others that have been nominated have also been deleted [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
- The article you claim passed WP:GNG (Alternative versions of Batman) was deleted.
- You don't have an answer to the nomination rationale, so you simply post ad an hominem attack. The articles are OR, they are a content fork, Fancruft/Listcruft articles sources do not meet GNG for notability. //
Timothy ::
talk
13:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was deleted on bandwagon voting after you cramed eight different articles into a single nomination. The problem is that you are assuming every article called Alternate versions is automatically fancruft or doesn't have coverage. I'm not making that up, it has been stated both in the vote below and in past nominations (note that both the nomination linked and several of the votes failed WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:ITSCRUFT).
- Likewise, what is your response to the six different articles from reliable third party news sites listed above? The Hollywood Reporter certainly is not a "fancruft source", as you claim above. Screen Rant is a reliable news source. Comic Book Resources is a reliable news source. IO9 is a reliable news source. Comics Alliance is a reliable news source. AV Club is a reliable news source. Where are these fancruft sources you speak of?
- If something has enough coverage, it's notable, regardless of if the article is all plot ( WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:RUBBISH) or has Alternate versions in the title. Period, full stop. Claiming that they are all fancruft because of the title is hardly constructive and it's why I am going to renominate most of these in the future. Dark knight 2149 19:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The overall topic of "alternative versions of the character" is not given enough attention in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. It should be summarized in the main per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. The retention of content is unnecessary due to it being 100% plot information. It should be started anew. TTN ( talk) 13:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Kitty Pryde per WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Selective Merge. Ignoring the stuff about previous nominations of similar articles as irrelevant to this nomination, and having looked at most of the sources provided here (some my office firewall won't allow), I see little to suggest that the topic of Alternative Versions of Kitty Pryde is notable. I do see evidence that Kitty Pryde is notable, that alternative versions of the X-Men are notable, and probably Ultimate Kitty and Days of Future Past are worthy of being mentioned in the parent article. Most of the rest of this can be dumped. -- Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 ( talk) 08:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to Kitty Pride#Other versions, there is no reason for this to be a split from the main article since it is nowhere near the amount of prose where a split would be necessary. I would have suggested a merge, but there is no content here worth merging, as it is all in-universe information sourced to primary sources, an expanded section will have to be written from scratch. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Nothing wrong with multiple identical nominations if the affected articles are nearly identical. And the sources given by DN seem to be primarily about the character, with only a passing mention here and there to her 'alternate versions'. No need for a dedicated fancruft/plot-only subarticle. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge I can see how this is redundant with the Kitty Pryde article with not much to cover outside of various plot summaries and excerpts. But there has been a consistent practice to merge comic characters with similar non-notable spinouts. See the AFDs for: Gambit, Storm, Jean Grey, Venom, The Thing, and Rogue, all of which were merged or redirected. Daredevil was deleted, but that's an outlier. I'm sure I missed a few others. I think we should always strive to WP:PRESERVE and use alternatives to deletion. (Pardon the copy-paste rationale, which I used at a similar AFD for Deadpool, but the rationale is truly about consistent best practice across many similar articles). Archrogue ( talk) 21:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Merge or delete due to a lack of coverage in third party sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. It's all sourced to primary sources and there's nothing to merge, but would support some kind of summarizing if an editor is willing to take that on. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:07, 30 September 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.