Alternative versions of Wonder Woman : References are 100% comic books (primary fiction sources).  The topic fails WP:GNG and is nothing but a plot summary.  At best, we can consider SOFTDELETE by redirecting this to Wonder Woman (no objection to merging a bit of plot summary if anyone thinks it is relevant).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Comics and animation ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions .  Does not appear to meet LISTN, and also fails NOTPLOT.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   I could have sworn this was nominated for deletion a few months ago and kept, but I don't see any mention of that on the page.   Either way, there are some problems with this nomination: firstly, issues with sourcing are not a valid reason for deletion.   Sourcing can always be improved; and the argument about "plot summaries" actually shoots the sourcing argument full of holes.   It's well-established in Wikipedia policy that works of fiction are valid sources for their own contents .  That means that if anyone with access to the works themselves can readily verify what they say, then identifying those sources in the article text—with or without inline citations to them—provides valid sources.   It might nonetheless be a good idea to cite them and find additional sources that mention some of the relevant details, just in order to demonstrate that valid sources exist to editors who aren't aware of this, and to improve the article in general.  But as long as sources for the contents of the article are in fact present—i.e. the names of the works identifying what they consist of—a lack of citations for many of the entries does not mean that there are no sources!   Not to mention that WP:BEFORE requires the nominator to make a good faith effort to find sources before making this argument in the first place—and that cannot have been done if the nominator failed to consider the works themselves as sources for their own contents.   Poor sourcing is not a valid argument for deletion—it is an argument for improving an article by adding sources.  Merely asserting that a topic fails the general notability guidelines isn't an argument—it's a lazy claim that something isn't important enough to cover because the nominator doesn't care about it.   But mass-market fiction is usually notable, and the subject of this article is something read by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, as part of a media franchise several decades old that includes notable film and television productions arising out of the same comic book series, known to hundreds of millions of people.   The argument, which the nominator failed to state clearly, runs along the lines, "it's bad enough that Wikipedia has to have articles about comic book characters—it shouldn't allow topics too large to be conveniently or comprehensively treated in those articles to be split off into separate articles."  But that would make articles about comic book characters different from all other articles on Wikipedia; splitting is ordinarily appropriate in order to cover topics—such as alternate versions of characters treated in different versions of a franchise and associated media—in sufficient detail.   It would be valid to argue that some of these versions are covered in excessive detail and could stand to be trimmed; but that is an argument to improve the article, not to delete it.  The argument about "plot" is clearly wrong.   If the article consisted of one plot in one work , then it would clearly be excessive.   But because each individual work treated has its own plot, and it would be necessary to explain how the character is treated in each work, some degree of plot summary is probably required for each entry.   Again, it's quite likely that some of these could be trimmed.   But that's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it.  Merging the article into the main one on Wonder Woman is not appropriate, as this article, even with substantial and appropriate trimming, would be excessively long and detailed to be folded into a section there.   In fact that article already has a very long section on this topic, that doesn't—and probably can't—begin to cover the subject comprehensively.   That's why it's split off into its own article.   It's a valid reason for splitting—and precisely what Wikipedia guidelines on article size recommends doing.   The arguments for merging come down to, "this isn't an important subject, therefore it can't have its own article," and that conflicts with Wikipedia's guidelines for article size and splitting large topics, which should prevail in any argument for merging.  We don't care that an article was written by "fans" of a topic—most Wikipedia articles are!   The topic is evidently notable, and while the article could probably use a lot of trimming—of details, not simply trashing whole sections on the grounds that they can't be worth covering—and better (and more obvious) source citations, it is clearly possible to improve it, and it is not a candidate for merging into the main article about Wonder Woman, so it should be kept where it is.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Works of fiction are indeed valid sources for their own content in the form of pure plot details, but (1) they do not establish notability, especially not in a case like this where they would be examples of an overarching topic rather than themselves the subject of the article, (2) they do not establish weight, and (3) policy explicitly prohibits basing entire articles on primary sources.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 13:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main topic here is Wonder Woman, who is unquestionably notable.   If a topic is notable, subtopics that are large enough to be split off from the main article are presumptively notable.   An argument could be made that the subject of this article is not sufficiently notable when treated separately, but the nominator hasn't overcome the presumption of notability merely by calling it fancruft.   Plot points of notable literature tend to be notable, and don't cease being notable merely because they're split off due to size.   Weight of course goes to how the article should be trimmed, but that's not an argument for deletion; even if the article needs to be substantially trimmed, it should be kept.   As for secondary sources, I happen to know that they're available—I've seen articles about the evolution of Wonder Woman over the decades on the New York Times , and I haven't even been looking.   Some of the plot lines in this article are definitely documented in other sources.  But AfD isn't based on whether the article already has good sources, but on whether suitable sources exist.   The nominator does not appear to have looked for them, and therefore failed to carry out WP:BEFORE.   This nomination is fatally flawed because it is based on the present sourcing—much of which is acceptable, if inadequate—and much more of which exists and could be added to the article.   It is explicitly the responsibility of editors wishing to delete articles to search for reliable sources—not the responsibility of editors who don't think deletion is warranted to find and incorporate them in order to avoid the articles being deleted.   I know that's how these discussions often turn out—nominators creating mountains of work for other editors because they couldn't be asked to follow WP:BEFORE—but that's not what AfD policy says.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 14:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the topic here is Alternative versions of Wonder Woman , not Wonder Woman .  It is not the case that subtopics that are large enough to be split off from the main article are presumptively notable ; notability is not inherited like that.  Even if it were, that still would do nothing to address the issue of this article being completely based on primary sources in direct violation of policy and primary sources not doing anything to establish weight.  The size argument also doesn't make a whole lot of sense absent proper sources—how on Earth would one know if this actually is large enough to be split off from the main article without surveying the relevant literature to assess the proper weight in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject ?  What's more, you're asking the nominator to prove a negative when you say that the nominator hasn't overcome the presumption of notability .  Finally, I put it to you that the person who creat[ed] mountains of work for other editors is whoever added a bunch of material based on primary sources in the first place, because at best it will all need to be done once over again based on secondary sources to make sure it properly reflects them in terms of relative weight of different aspects and so on.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 16:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of these are arguments for improving the article, not for deleting it.   And it is absolutely the responsibility of someone who nominates an article for deletion due to a lack of citations to reliable, independent sources to undertake a reasonable search for them.   The nominator does not need to prove that such sources do not exist ; but if the nominator searched known or available sources that might be expected to contain some of the relevant information, and found nothing, that would be sufficient to support the nomination.   The sources do not need to corroborate all of the details of individual plots; for that the article may cite the works themselves.  What is not acceptable is to claim that the article should be deleted because it is fancruft about a comic book character and cites only primary sources—the first is a subjective judgment by the nominator about a notable body of fiction, and the second can be remedied by searching for and citing independent sources for at least some of the article—something which is certainly possible, since such sources are known to exist.   The nominator cannot be forced to search for or incorporate any sources—but if he does not, then the nomination must fail and the article should be kept .  P Aculeius ( talk ) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the article contains no properly-sourced material (as is the case here), redirecting is a perfectly cromulent WP:Alternative to deletion —and was suggested in the nomination, as you can plainly see.  Arguing that it should be kept without even entertaining that option is a ridiculous absolutist position.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, AfD policy clearly states that the question is whether sources exist , not whether they are presently cited in the article—and as I've said multiple times, I know that sources for this exist, because I've seen and read some.   WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable search for sources before an article can be deleted for lack thereof—if sources can be located with a reasonably diligent effort to find them, then the article should not be nominated for deletion, irrespective of whether anyone has bothered to cite them in the article.   Since the nominator failed to do so, and no attempt to find or incorporate sources is shown in either the nomination or the subsequent discussion, this article is not even a candidate for deletion.   And you yourself admitted that the article contains valid sources for most of its contents—just not independent ones.   It doesn't take a lot of them to support the article, but AfD policy is clear, and this nomination fails to comport with that policy, so it must be kept .  P Aculeius ( talk ) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like I said, a ridiculous absolutist position.  If you have the means to turn this into a properly-sourced article, great—do that.  But until that happens, there is no reason to retain this version that would need to be remade completely from scratch.  You have presented no argument whatsoever that would preclude redirecting this to Wonder Woman#Other versions until such a time.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 11:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions - While a few of the individual versions of Wonder Woman may have some reliable sources discussing them, and should be covered in prose format on the main Wonder Woman article, the overall topic of every "alternative" version of the character does not have the sources to pass the WP:GNG as a distinct topic nor WP:LISTN as a valid list.  This list does not contain a single non-primary source and the vast majority of the entries here are extremely minor variants of the character that only featured in single Elseworld style stories, so a simple Redirect would be sufficient as an WP:ATD .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 04:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As already stated, WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable search for sources to support an article before it is nominated for deletion.   That has not been done.   There are most certainly independent sources for some of the article's contents.   Not every item in a list needs to be individually notable, as long as the overall topic is, and just a few independent sources would demonstrate that.   But the present state of sourcing is not relevant to AfD: it's whether suitable sources exist , not whether they've been cited or incorporated into the article.   AfD cannot proceed until a good faith effort has been made to locate independent sources to support it.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not every item in a list needs to be individually notable – no, but per WP:PROPORTION they do need to be covered in sources on the overarching topic.  Is that the case?  Then cite those sources and present the various aspects with a relative weight corresponding to their treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject .  Until that is done, there exists no case against redirecting this to Wonder Woman#Other versions in the meantime.  I'm sure you know that even notable topics do not always warrant a stand-alone article, as per WP:PAGEDECIDE .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 11:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "There are most certainly independent sources".  Asserting WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES several times is not going to make you argument stronger.  If there are sources, cite them.  And if there are for some aspects of the article, then the problem of this being improperly framed remains.  IF you find said sources, they can be used to expand the target article.  Little of the fancruft here is encyclopedic, I fear.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:LISTN , a stand alone list may not require every item in the list to be individually notable, but does need to have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".  I have yet to find, nor see anyone present in this AFD, evidence of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that demonstrates the notability of the topic of alternate versions of Wonder Woman.  And yes, despite your repeated assumption of bad faith that obviously WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and thus if no one has found them then they obviously did not perform a WP:BEFORE search, I have searched for sources, and found nothing except a small handful of the typical churnalism "top ten" lists that are generally not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability.  As I alluded to in my initial comment, any specific version that actually has any sources to show that they are slightly more notable than the multitude of one-shot versions that make up the majority of this list can be included in the appropriate section on the Wonder Woman article, which, per WP:NOPAGE , is a perfectly acceptable way of presenting that information.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions which, if the plot summary was pared down to manageable levels, could definitely support all the notable parts of this list and more.  Going back to the initial creation of this article, it was definitely not made with notability in mind.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Fiction can be sourced for its own story details, but WP:NOT tells us that articles must be more than WP:PLOT summaries.  This cannot meet that standard because there isn't enough reliable reception, and so it fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I can't find any in-depth coverage in Reliable sources about the topic "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman" (the only coverage I can find is from low quality listicles).  Since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED this article needs to prove its own WP:GNG , which I can't see it doing.  Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I have held out for the purported usable sources to be cited as part of an effort to improve the article or at minimum be identified with enough specificity to enable somebody else to improve the article with them, but we're approaching five days since they were asserted to exist and that hasn't happened.  As it stands, we have a perfectly reasonable redirect target in Wonder Woman#Other versions and none of the current content at the article under discussion is properly sourced.  Turning this into a proper article based on secondary/tertiary sources on the overarching topic— Alternative versions of Wonder Woman —would be great, but it would necessitate starting over from scratch due to the fundamental problems with the current version.  Until somebody takes the time to actually carry that out, redirecting is the way to go.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think for most of these "Alternative versions" articles, where there isn't any reliable secondary coverage of the grouping, merge is the right solution, an WP:ATD both preserving history, and moving an appropriate amount of missing information into the main article.  Redirect may be fine here as well.  — siro χ o 01:49, 6 August 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: redirect