Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics)

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 keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly in-depth plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. None of the non-primary sources constitute significant coverage on the topic. TTN (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:LISTN – see this or that or more. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our policies such as WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER; WP:NEXIST; WP:IMPERFECT; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Perhaps we should keep this article for now. Especially since some of the Earth-616 versions of Thor are not put into a set index. @Andrew Davidson: is right about his sources. Plus, where would be put the information on the Thor Corps if the page is deleted? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per above, or at worst merge to Thor (Marvel Comics) per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot of these actually are more like one-off or short-run characters with the power of Thor. That is to say, if "Thor" was a position rather than a character, and we had a list of fictional holders of the position, they would are here. It's a bit different from the convention of using alternate universe versions of a character which are in fact the same character under a different set of circumstances. BD2412 T 03:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't see a problem with this list. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge. While there are some sources discussing his alternate versions, I don't see why this cannot be merged. Only the most fancruft-loving fans will want to see this split off, and even then, probably not most. This is super niche trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge as per editor Poitr. William Harris (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - From the several reliable sources discussing the topic, it is evident that this nomination passes the criteria discussed at WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. NOTPLOT is not a criteria for deletion, so if that is the crux of this nomination, then rewrite the article. Wikipedia is not a final draft. Ultimately, this is another example of why I have been critical of specific users bulk-nominating everything with Alternate versions in the title (usually with the same rationale on every one).

Although a great many of these lists do not pass GNG, several of them actually do, such as Alternative versions of Batman (which I plan to nominate for rediscussion after it was mindlessly lumped in with several others despite receiving heavy coverage), and to a lesser extent, Alternative versions of Deadpool as examples. If Alternative versions of Spider-Man gets nominated (which is heavily covered and even has entire storylines and films based around it), that will further solidify my point. Darkknight2149 04:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep On the fence about this one, but I tend to agree with the rationale above about how this is about separate individuals with the moniker of Thor, which sets its apart from other similar "alternate comics" articles. Rhino131 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to the main article per User:Piotrus. Screenrant and CBR are the same company, and they've been a point of controversy between Wikipedia editors. They have a shaky editorial reputation with questionable standards, and write mostly clickbait articles full of plot details, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. The only source providing any out of universe detail is this, and you need more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION to verify WP:NOTABILITY. If this article does not improve it should be folded into another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, essentially per Andrew Davidson, above, especially sources including Screen Rant, and Comic Book Resources, as noted, above. Right cite (talk) 00:48, 15 October 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.