Goku vs. Superman: Does not appear to have enough in-depth sourcing from a non-in-universe perspective to pass notability criteria.  Onel 5969 TT me 11:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation ,  and Anime and manga .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , The topic does not seem very notable and its existence might open the floodgates to more articles like it.  Crunchyroll doesn't seem very reliable nor should it add to notability.  A quick google search proves at least some level of user published content on it.  CBR might be reliable, but it seems a lot more interested in clicks than info.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 13:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, before writing the article, I made sure that none of the sources I used were deemed to be unreliable on WP:RSN or WP:RSP .  Koopinator ( talk ) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes#ep41 , the status quo before the "biggest shitpost [Koopinator has] ever done on this site." -- T avix ( talk ) 18:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think sourcing present in the article justifies inclusion, though not by any means a landslide.  IGN Screen Rant GamerRanx .  The IGN article, if only reading the article title, seems like a run of the mill interview, but there is enough secondary commentary within the article I think for it to be secondary and not just primary.  Same situation with GamerRanx (they also say their source is the same IGN article, but they still provide unique secondary commentary and don't simply regurgitate IGN).  Screen Rant has consensus for reliability in entertainment [28] [29] and is entirely secondary commentary.  A lot of it is discussed from a in-universe perspective, but that is simply the byproduct of the subject.  While article author does declare the article their biggest shitpost , I don't believe their motivation should be considered when evaluating for deletion.  — Sirdog ( talk ) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like the few reliable sources don't save it from the fact that it is almost exclusively in universe discussion.  The only part that might be considered out of universe is that a few news articles covered it and the voice actor was interviewed.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As article creator.  I am not aware of any notability guideline saying that sources have to be from an out-universe perspective.  The notability guideline I learned about ( WP:GNG ) said that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ."  To set the record straight, I did call this "my biggest shitpost" (it's definitely silly compared to the stuff I normally write about), but I also sincerely believe this article abides by Wikipedia policy.  When I initially made this, I added Category:Philosophical problems and Template:Unsolved because I was having a lot of fun, since then it's been wikified a bit more and I believe it's currently suitable for inclusion Koopinator ( talk ) 05:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:WAF does mention that there should be some level of out-of-universe perspective.  I am not convinced that this article passes it due to a lack of anything besides "This person/group commented on the subject".  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 15:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:WAF concerns the presentation of material, not notability.  The article does make it clear that Goku and Superman are fictional characters.  I think it's also helpful to note that the lead WP:WAF says: "Although this page is not a policy , following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally considered good practice."  Koopinator ( talk ) 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Incredibly well known and covered debate within fandom, comparisions between Goku and Superman have been done on all aspects of their characters.  There has even been a book written about it.  It was well known way before the rap battle video so redirecting there makes zero sense.  Just because we don't have any other articles like it that doesn't mean its an invalid topic for the encyclopedia.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 09:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is certainly an interesting source.  Perhaps we could expand this article to a scope of Comparison of Goku and Superman , rather than solely focusing on battle capabilities.  We'll see.  Koopinator ( talk ) 09:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and redirect to List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes#ep41 .  I am not convinced in the slightest it passes WP:GNG (it is sourced mostly to content farm sites that come up more and more often as false notability) but even if it did, it still violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  GNG is not the be all end all, as stated on the page itself.  Zero context as to why this hypothetical battle is important in any way.  The book about Superman vs Goku is also not about what this article is about, a hypothetical power comparison, but cultural values.  The article would technically be about Western vs Eastern comics and not specifically Superman vs Goku, and need to be totally rewritten.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sourced mostly to content farms.  Nothing significant to preserve.  Redirect is unlikely search target and encourages back-door recreation.  I know some pretty bizarre topics routinely get high-quality or even featured articles but I’m also of the opinion that “ extraordinary claims of notability require extraordinary evidence ”.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per Zxcvbnm.  Artem.G ( talk ) 20:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 01:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Every news site or publication has things they write just to be interest to some customers or to fill pages with.   Claiming a reliable source is only reliable when they are writing articles you approve of, is not reasonable.   The WP:NOTABILITY guidelines is clearly met here.   There are entire articles written about this in multiple reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very least, a lot of the websites I don't approve of, I wouldn't in any circumstance.  A lot of the sources seem either user-generated or content farms.  For example, CBR has tutorials on how to get items or hypotheticals like "Who is Scarlet Spider?" so seems like a content farm.  After looking it up, anyone can write for Crunchyroll.  The second IGN source is a video about a mod that looks user generated.  This is the only one I would flip on if you can prove that someone official posted it.  Screenrant is ranking best fights but I can't access the rest of the article so it is pretty hard to judge.  Using just the ones I have eliminated here and not counting Screenrant, that brings down the amount of sources by 4 (Crunchyroll is used twice).  And I only checked those 4.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 21:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not saying I disagree with your assessment on notability, but I would like to hear how you determined that anyone can write for Crunchyroll.  Link20XX ( talk ) 23:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I still don't think Crunchyroll is super reliable, the thing I looked at was an outdated (broken) form so I am not 100% sure how open they are for applicants.  I apologize for the mistake.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The IGN source on the mod was published as an article on the site and also on the site's official YouTube channel .  I see nothing to indicate that this source is user-generated content.  Koopinator ( talk ) 07:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This makes me feel a bit uncertain about the video on one condition: how exclusive is IGN at picking videos.  If IGN's YouTube channel is effectively just a smaller video-sharing site, then I have issues.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 18:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to epic rap battles.  Most of the sources here aren't reliable, or feature only trivial mentions.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Zxcvbnm.  This is an unencyclopedic argument, of course, and most of the sources aren’t even reliable.  Redjedi23 ( talk ) 18:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't think that the subject being cool or lame is a good reason to keep or delete.  Here is my evaluation of the sources in the article.  I am going to see if they demonstrate notability (cites being N do not mean they're bad , just that they don't contribute to WP:GNG ).  1: Y Bonthuys, Darryn (2015-08-04).  "Goku vs Superman, who would win? We asked the Super Saiyan himself".  Critical Hit.  Retrieved 2023-04-20.  I am not so sure about this site in 2023.  It seems to have a lot of crap on it.  However, this article was written by a staff editor whose articles seem to be legitimate.  Going back in history, it was previously called Lazygamer which in 2015 had some very normal reporting .  This source is devoted entirely to the subject.  2: Ng "Goku Voice Actor Weighs in on Goku vs. Superman Argument".  Gameranx.  2022-08-17.  Retrieved 2023-04-20.  This cites the IGN article.  3: Y Connolly, Spencer (2022-03-24).  "The Goku vs Superman Debate Ignores The Saiyans' Dumbest Weakness".  ScreenRant.  Retrieved 2023-04-20.  Written by a staff writer .  This source is devoted entirely to the subject.  This is not written in-universe (it summarizes a chapter of the manga and then goes on to explain why the author thinks Goku would not win).  4: Y Jones, Mat (2022-08-17).  "Could Goku Beat Superman? We Asked Goku's Voice Actor to Settle the Argument".  IGN.  Retrieved 2023-04-20.  I think this is one of the strongest sources; IGN is a real publication, and Mat Jones works for them.  This is also entirely about the subject.  5: Yg Vo, Long (October 2002).  "Superman vs. Goku".  Wizard magazine.  p. 64.  Yes, this is in a magazine, but it's a full page magazine feature about the fight.  While it does illustrate a fictional scenario in which they fight, it shows the topic was considered at least notable enough for them to spend a page on it.  That said, there is not a lot of analysis or commentary, so I don't know if this is the strongest source.  6: Motwani, Nishid (2020-09-20).  "Ultra Instinct Goku Vs Superman: Who Would Win?".  CBR.  Retrieved 2023-04-20.  7: N Luster, Joseph (10 January 2013).  "VIDEO: Decisive Death Battle! Goku vs. Superman! WHO WINS?".  Crunchyroll.  Retrieved 2023-04-20.  This is just a Crunchyroll video.  8: Yg Potvin, James (2022-01-03).  "Death Battle!: The 10 Best Fights Ever".  ScreenRant.  Retrieved 2023-04-20.  Inclusion in a list isn't primarily focused on the subject, although it is coverage.  9: N Luster, Joseph (19 May 2014).  "VIDEO: Goku Takes on Superman in the Latest "Epic Rap Battle"". Crunchyroll. Retrieved 2023-04-20. This isn't really anything. 10: N DragonBall FighterZ Mod - Superman vs Goku - Mod by Mastaklo - IGN, 2018-04-25, retrieved 2023-06-01 Neither is this. 11: N Brazile, Camden (2021-09-18). "Voter Participation Skyrockets After Adding "Goku or Superman" to Ballot". Hard Drive. Retrieved 2023-04-20. This is a reference to something in the article, but I do not think it affects notability. There is no requirement that "most of the sources" support notability -- otherwise, we could make an article fail notability by adding more sources (huh?). We only require that enough support notability that it passes GNG; see WP:THREE . jp × g 22:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this article does pass this discussion, do you think that we should get rid of the unreliable or non-notable sources (7, 9, 10)? ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think so. The OP did say "cites being  do not mean they're bad , just that they don't contribute to WP:GNG ". Koopinator ( talk ) 06:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ScreenRant is a content farm site, it shouldn't really count towards notability. And "we asked the Super Saiyan himself"? This goes into the realm of fanfiction, Wikipedia is not in the business of being a repository of fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Facepalm They're using "Super Saiyan" as a euphemism for the voice actor. Koopinator ( talk ) 15:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As if that somehow makes it better? It's speculation... from the mouth of the voice actor. The only way this would be admissible is if DC Comics and Akira Toriyama made a special agreement only this actor was privy to, and even if they were, it would be a primary source that doesn't count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a patently unencyclopedic topic, and the referencing brought here doesn't disabuse me of that notion; it's either low-effort churnalism, interviews, or clickbait that focuses on in-universe stuff in violation of FICT that indicates it lacks the real-world importance required (the book suggested as a source, for example, is not covering the topic in the way this article is.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Wikipedia already covers a lot of internet memes that gained notoriety. Borysk5 ( talk ) 07:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But has the sources proven that it is notable? If this was a well written page with many sources that we all agree are reliable, we wouldn't be here. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 17:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The points in favor of, say, the SR source are: A reliable source Editorially independent Written by a staff writer Primarily devoted to the topic The points against it seem to be: Someone at AfD thinks it is silly jp × g 20:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "It's silly" is a valid argument if the article cannot have context for why it should be taken seriously. That is the basis behind WP:INDISCRIMINATE . The article does not claim anywhere that the question of Goku vs. Superman is anything more than a triviality, and simply because sources have written about it doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Pure, unmitigated WP:SYNTH -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 10:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a new claim. What makes you think this is WP:SYNTH ? Koopinator ( talk ) 06:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I don't agree that it's SYNTH. Failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE , almost certainly, failing WP:GNG , probably, but the article does not draw any conclusions not stated in the sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Content farm sources should not be used to establish notability, and the edit summary during the creation of the article suggests that the page creator had some idea of this. Though I do wonder if there are sources out there for the more general concept of "who would win in a fight", which is a fairly popular idea in popular culture and internet culture.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It would seem to me that there is some circularity to the reasoning that the topic is stupid because the sources are bad, and the sources are bad because they're reporting about something as stupid as this, which we know is stupid because it's being reported on by sources this bad, which we know are bad because... jp × g 03:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the sourcing is bad because it is bad.  A lot of it is content farming or squinting to make sources look like they’re serious critical analysis and not tongue-in-cheek interviews and what is basically fan fiction.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete