Deletion of Alternative versions of Mister Fantastic

Comment: Article does not meet  and  showed nothing that meets . Article itself is mostly (all)  based on primary sources. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:OR)

Comment: fails  , the article is 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: as an article that fails the . The difference between an "alternate" and "main" version isn't supported by reliable third-party sources. Certainly not enough to meet our notability standards, and possibly the |original interpretation of a few editors. We shouldn't create endless spinouts of mostly |in universe information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OR||WP:PLOT)

Comment: Once again,  is determined by the existence of sources, not by whatever sources are or aren't in the article, per , , , , and . The crux of this nomination is {{green|"Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe subjects"}}, seeing as {{green|"fails to justify its existence through the reliable sources needed to pass "}} is irrelevant as far as deletion goes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:DELREASON||WP:NEXIST||WP:ATD||WP:ARTN||WP:NNC)

Comment: WP:FANCRUFT, fails /GNG, cited to  sources only
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFICTION||WP:PRIMARY)