Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powers and abilities of Superman

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 delete. Sandstein 19:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Superman[edit]

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

Comic book WP:FANCRUFT that is more fit for DC Wikia than Wikipedia. Predominantly referenced to the comics themselves besides some minor links. The Superman article already describes this information in a more succinct and encyclopedic manner. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage in the Superman article is adequate, and the actual abilities have varied wildly over time. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There's actually a pretty good article lurking here that fits with summary style. Hiding T 14:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done some small bits, The Ages of Superman: Essays on the Man of Steel in Changing Times looks like a good source for expanding and tweaking. Hiding T 15:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Superman. The overwhelming majority of sources are WP:PRIMARY. Beyond that, the article subject is of little interest beyond dedicated fans, and in fact the lead of this article is a verbatim copy of what is in the Superman article. The remainder is based exclusively on primary sources and is WP:OR, something which is also obvious once a look is taken at the contents of the talk page. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is supposed to be a verbatim copy of what is in the Superman article. This suggests you are unfamiliar with practise on Wikipedia and are not following the debate, see the previously mentioned summary style guidance. Hiding T 08:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm really getting at is that beyond the lead, there is no quality content sourced with independent, non-primary sources. If the lead as copied verbatim is short enough to fit in the relevant article (as it currently is), there is no need for a split. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2018 (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.