Deletion of Alternative versions of Black Canary

Comment: per TTN. The main article is still well within a readable size, and we shouldn't be creating endless non-notable spinouts. If you have a well sourced section that isn't just a collection of primary data, a spinout will naturally meet the . This one does not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: pretty much per nom. There seems to be a consistency with this kind of cruft (see, for example, List of My Hero Academia characters and its associated talk: fandom-fests such as these become troll magnets very quickly). This is |the best way. Special:contributions/Serial Number 54129
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: as Black Canary is long enough. At the very least '''Merge''' to Black Canary#Other versions where some of this material (as you can't ignore all the alternative Black Canary versions when writing on Black Canary, some of them are significant) should be and currently points at this article. I take umbrage at Piotrus mangling my edit summary (omitting "This is a split from..."), as this article is a '''''' from Black Canary and the question here isn't notability or deletion but rather whether  is appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT||WP:MERGE)

Comment: Article splits are justified only when splitting necessary content. This is |all plot information not backed by reliable sources to |establish the topic's notability. There is no particular value in merging this content, so that section should be started from scratch using summary style
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT||WP:GNG)