Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DC Universe (franchise)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. No consensus to delete. The main disagreement here seems to be over whether DCEU and DCU need to be two separate articles, which is an editorial dispute and not a matter for AFD. Consensus seems, in any case, firmly in favour of the split. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DC Universe (franchise)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

DC Universe (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear that there will be a new franchise after Aquaman and The Lost Kingdom. Gunn and Safran refer to upcoming 2023 DCEU films as part of DCU despite a timeline reset with The Flash (https://www.polygon.com/23579802/james-gunn-dc-slate-movies-tv-animation-gaming-explained), (https://www.dc.com/blog/2023/01/31/james-gunn-and-peter-safran-on-building-a-new-dc-universe). This article was also created while a renaming of

DC Universe (film series) was still under discussion under the same name when the creator should have waited, he then renamed it to this. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Just like to point out that a “successor” is different from its predecessor. If it were the same it would be a continuation.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Comics and animation. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: James Gunn never said Flash and Aquaman were part of the DCU. He simply said they would lead into his slate of films by virtue of Flash rebooting the continuity, and he specifically denoted Blue Beetle as a movie that was standalone enough that it didn't interfere with the existing DCEU and could potentially be retroactively integrated into the new DCU slate. Not to mention everything Justice League adjacent in the slate such as Superman Legacy, Brave and the Bold and Lanterns essentially solidifies this is a reboot because it is entirely dissociated from the existing incarnations of these characters and organizations.
Waller is also specifically talked about by Gunn as treating all the events of The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker as if it took place in a "rough memory" of what the old DCEU was, and it seems like a very purposeful wording in the event they decide to slot in his Suicide Squad characters while changing the events of their prior appearances in order to suit the new canon. He also repeatedly used terms like "new canon" when discussing that everything from Creature Commandos onwards was properly connected to other projects and part of their overarching Chapter 1 story.
Evertything he's basically said thus far about the DCU's relationship to the old DCEU insinuates this is the start of something completely seperate and not just a rebranding of the DCEU. It wouldn't make sense that they just rebrand an existing franchise while completely disregarding its canon and starting from scratch on essentially everything. It sounds strange on paper considering there's never been a franchise-wide restart of this scale before when it comes to shared universe models, but that's what this is. Not to mention this isn't even new for DC because they do this for comics all the time. It wouldn't make sense to slot these films in the existing DCEU article because it would just be confusing to follow when suddenly like 13 films in Superman is played by a completely different actor, and its story doesn't even acknowledge that Man of Steel ever happened, and same with Batman because everyone fully recognizes something like Reeves' film as a reboot despite the fact it may have started as a DCEU project. RebelYasha (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He said Shazam has always been off kind of in his own part of the DCU so he connects very well... That moves directly into The Flash, a fantastic movie that […] resets the entire DC universe, and then [...] into Blue Beetle, about a kid who’s a marvelous part of the DCU, and then into Aquaman 2. I don't know how much more clear he can get to imply it beyond calling DCEU films as DCU. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All these quotes about Shazam and Aquaman "connecting well" are clearly a blanket PR statement because Gunn can't outright confirm that those films would have basically no relevance to what he's doing because he doesn't want to take away from their marketing and basically tell people they don't have to watch those movies. If he actually had a plan for those characters beyond their immediate films, they would've 100% shown up or be more than just passive mentions in his slate presentation, which was basically devoid of all of those characters (including Wonder Woman). He even addressed the rumors of Momoa being transitioned to Lobo after Aquaman 2 and still played it extremely close to the chest. If Momoa was clearly coming back as Aquaman he probably would've said that specific character has a future beyond Lost Kingdom in the immediate next slate of films.
Same exact thing happened with Dwayne Johnson claiming that him and DC would continue "exploring ways in which Black Adam could be used in future DC multiverse chapters" despite the fact Black Adam is clearly not getting any sort of sequel with him involved, especially taking into consideration the fact it would've led into a Henry Cavill crossover means nothing anymore now that said actor has departed Superman.
Gunn's not going to outright confirm the status of certain characters or actors getting new projects in the current canon until it's been long enough to the point he can officially address his plans in full. That's also likely why the slate he revealed yesterday was only about half of all the Chapter One projects, and coincidentally also exclusively focused on entirely new, or rebooted characters. If he's dropping Cavill from Superman and casting a completely seperate Batman that isn't related to either Affleck or Pattinson, in addition to doing a completely seperate Supergirl film that's unrelated to the character's appearance in Flash, what is stopping him from just going all the way and recasting the entire Justice League? Waller and Peacemaker S2 will probably function as apertifs between the two continuities, but the fact he refers to Superman as the "true start" to the main narrative basically confirms he's using those earlier projects to transition into the new canon, and then everything onwards is a completely new ball game. RebelYasha (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are bold claims but you're not giving direct references. Please cite the sentences where he states this, and see my comment below where he states explicitly today that he his not rebooting the DCEU. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interview where Gunn talks about Waller's relationship to Peacemaker and Momoa's Aquaman status
https://gizmodo.com/james-gunn-dc-slate-info-flash-aquaman-justice-league-1850051467
Gunn INSISTING that Waller is a DCU show and not set in the DCEU to another user on Twitter
https://www.reddit.com/r/DCEUleaks/comments/10roln2/gunn_insists_creature_commandos_and_waller_are_in/
Gunn sharing a liked post on his IG story that clarifies Shazam, Flash, Blue Beetle and Aquaman as taking place in the "old DCEU" and not being a part of the canon that begins with Creature Commandos
https://www.reddit.com/r/DCEUleaks/comments/10rcg8g/james_gunn_liked_and_shared_this_post_in_an_ig/ RebelYasha (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is clearly intended to be a reboot with the vast majority of the films not being connected to the DCEU. Just because The Flash will lead up to the reboot doesn't mean it should be grouped with the DCEU. Creatively speaking, the DCEU and the DCU are two different takes and should be separated. Furthermore, it is easier to organize the articles by having them split instead of one large convoluted article detailing different timelines and stuff. Samhiuy (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft: it is not clear if it is an hard reboot or just a rebranding of the old DCEU. I think that we should wait. --Redjedi23 (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:: Regardless if this the successor to the DCEU or a continuation of the DCEU, this seems like a natural break in the article and thus a good place to split the topic.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if the DCU is not a hard reboot, the old article is already too large and convoluted even without these new projects. This is as obvious a divider we're going to get for a much-needed article split.
But beyond all that, I think some people are falling for clever PR wording regarding the yet-to-be-released projects from the old regime. They can't disown those projects publicly (yet) because WB already heavily invested in them and need them to return as much money as possible. Telling everyone those projects and characters won't have a future will cause a decent chunk of people to lose interest in seeing them. Prefall 12:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Please don’t delete it because this is different from the old universe and it will be more confusing if kept the new movies and the old movies under the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovie11 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having two seperate articles helps keep things seperate. The DCEU article was becoming too unwiedly to begin with. As per James Gunn, Superman: Legacy is the "true start" of the DCU. -FilmVoyage (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously Gunn would never be allowed to go and say "hey these four movies coming up we spent millions of dollars on will not go any further and are just remnants of a previous direction", he kept it vague on purpose but anyone can pick up on the hints that this is a reboot, be it a soft or hard one, so it makes sense to keep the two pages separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.179.6 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge: I know it's basically a reboot of the Snyder era, but I think there can be a way to merge this into the DCEU page.
    . . .talk) 15:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Just like we have a separate article for each phase of the MCU. Whether it's a hard reboot or soft reboot doesn't really matter. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it's still not entirely clear whether this is a hard reboot and whether the new films will share continuity with the older ones, but from a real-world perspective this is clearly a brand new thing. We should not be trying to stuff in all the new info to DC Extended Universe, which is already quite lengthy. There was also consensus at Talk:DC Extended Universe#Requested move 31 January 2023 for this draft to be moved to the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a strong reason to delete the article and re-merge it with the DCEU article. If the one in charge of these films says it's not a reboot, then we should go by his word. I guess we could say he's partially rebooting the DCEU, but that was also going to be done under Walter Hamada. So I don't think there's any reason to have a separate DCU article. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. If the co-CEO/co-Chairman James Gunn states that it's not a reboot, who are we to say that it is? We can reference that it "restarts" aspects of the franchise through paragraphs/pros in the article. I've made this comparison before, but there are various examples of a film in an established continuity changing the franchise. Some examples would be X-Men: Days of Future Past in the 20th Century Fox X-Men films, each of the respective Terminator movies, J.J. Abram's Star Trek movie, Back to the Future: Part II...Each of these examples are equally comparable as they change the timeline/continuity through the use of time-travel (something that The Flash is also doing). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attention all, particularly to users (who have commented):
Conman33, JDDJS, InfiniteNexus, Adamstom97
-- and all other contributors. With Gunn's new comments, its clear this is not a hard/complete reboot as some may have initially believed. Though the DCEU article is currently long as-is, it seems the discussion should be/needs to be how to condense its contents and/or an article renaming. Furthermore, this current article could be kept as a more more detailed article about the "Chapter 1: Gods and Monsters" slate of projects. Thoughts?
DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By certain characters staying he is most definitely referring to his TSS/Peacemaker characters and the Waller series already is evidence of this. Everything else is getting recasted pretty much. Cavill and Batfleck are gone, Gal is up in the air but it seems that the Amazon series will end with a Wonder Woman (which by then someone new will likely have been cast) and Ezra is pretty much out after The Flash, the latter pretty obviously not being stated right now since that’d kill interest in the movie. So I still strongly oppose merging/deleting this into the DCEU as that will just convolut things even worse. There’s a reason why we don’t include the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy as part of the official film structure of the MCU at Marvel despite being linked via the multiverse in No Way Home and releasing before that franchise started in 2008. This logic should apply to the DCEU/DCU dilemma as well since it’s almost the same thing. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Chapter 1: Gods and Monsters per DisneyMetalhead. The change in name to DC Universe does not reflect change in continuity. The current shared universe was renamed the DC Universe in October 2022 (https://comicbook.com/dc/news/warner-bros-official-name-dc-movies-films-universe-dceu-dcu-explained/, https://www.slashfilm.com/1072135/the-dc-extended-universe-is-no-more-long-live-the-dc-universe/). DCU is in effect now. Swordofneutrality (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the DC Universe name should stick for this particular article because it's an all-encompassing one much like the one for the Marvel Cinematic Universe and talks about everything. Since "Chapters" are clearly Gunn's approach to "Phases" in the MCU there should be seperate articles for each Chapter like how there are individual articles for the MCU's Phases that cover each part of the franchise by itself. This is for everything RebelYasha (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that @Swordofneutrality:'s implication was that it should be renamed to reflect something similar to the MCU's phase articles. The DCU is a continuation of the DCEU. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right; my suggestion is to rename the DCEU article to DC Universe (media franchise) or similar and also have separate articles about the DCU chapters. Swordofneutrality (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note My opinion of keeping the article has not changed at all based on the latest news. Whether this is the best name for the article is a different discussion; however, regardless of how much of an in universe reboot happens, there is an extremely significant change in the real world people behind the films. The DCEU article is already very long. This is a perfect natural content splitting point. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't the discussion at this point then be to rename the DCEU article (if anything), and then use additional articles to separate the "chapters" aka phases? The argument that the article is long is valid, but there really isn't two separate franchises here. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into the DC Extended Universe for now, while it is possible (and maybe likely) an article should be made for this separate incarnation/revision of DC's cinematic universe films as of now no actual films or TV series have been produced or even started production. Its TOOSOON.★Trekker (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six exists despite the fact that not only has nothing in it started development, but nothing from Phase 5 has even been released. I fail to see how this is different. In fact, there are far more reasons that this should be a standalone article. There's completely new leadership running the company. Characters are being recast. It's a completely new period for the company. It's not like either article is short. DCEU was already ready for a content split. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we should also delete the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles for stuff like Phases Five and Six since there are a massive chunk of projects in that franchise that are still in varying stages of pre-production. This warrants a standalone article because regardless of if the DCEU is being "rebranded", the content itself speaks to the fact Gunn is clearly breaking continuity with the established canon going forward and this article's content would not fit with the DCEU article we have because the projects involved are completely dissociated. It would be incredibly unwieldy to merge this especially given the DCEU does not follow the structure in regards to chronology Gunn's slate already does from the on-set, and it's also highly likely that anything that survives the transition between continuities isn't going to acknowledge the previous canon going forward, essentially also constituting a reboot like with Waller only making reference to events from Peacemaker and TSS, but nothing else. RebelYasha (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant. And I would have no problem merging Phase Five and Six into the main MCU article honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The first film of Phase Five in the MCU releases in 2 weeks so that point is already lost. Most projects of Phase Five have already filmed or are about to begin filming so that point is also lost. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six exists though, so what you just said is irrelevant. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion I held at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six#Mainspace, that might be of some relevance. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this analysis. We shouldn't have articles for projects exclusively for titles that aren't even a reality yet. They are all in early-development if anything (MCU Phases 6 and 7) and DCEU: Chapter 1 - Gods and Monsters. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'd also like to make mention of the fact that The Flash's main story inspiration being Flashpoint means that whether or not certain characters are retained from the DCEU does not disregard the fact this is essentially a reboot by all accounts. Flashpoint's story also ends with specific characters from the previous New Earth DC Universe surviving and even remembering events from the previous pre-Flashpoint timeline, which is also likely what the movie will derive from to explain the change in continuity still allowing characters like the Suicide Squad members and A.R.G.U.S. to cross over. New 52 was still treated as a reboot/relaunch of the DC Universe in the comics that was completely dissociated from the years of comics pre-dating Flashpoint and did not require that material for the reader to understand the new canon, in the same way that's completely what they're going for with using The Flash movie to act as a transition point into the James Gunn canon. Some characters will move into the new timeline but most of them will be treated as if its their first or earliest appearance. Doesn't make it any less of a reboot because the DCEU will not be required to understand the context for the characters anymore. Superman: Legacy isn't related to Man of Steel, in the same way The Batman isn't related to BvS. It's a reboot in everything but explicit naming. RebelYasha (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here however is we have the man partially rebooting the DCEU saying that the DCEU films are a part of DCU. Nobody ever called Killing Joke a New 52 story, even though elements of it made it into the New 52. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That quote about the four projects this year being connected to the DCU still doesn't mean they're set in the DCU. Shazam and Aquaman are DCEU sequels, and Blue Beetle has been in production for far longer than the current leadership has been around so Gunn and Safran can't really step in and alter its canon to make it a part of their universe as its being made. Him saying Aquaman leads into Superman is still true by technicality because he's talking about their film releases, and Superman is still their next movie after Aquaman since Commandos and Waller are TV series.
He also explicitly makes mention of his DCU being seperate multiple times in the interview he did with DC following his announcement:
“But the one thing that we can promise is that everything from our first project forward (Creature Commandos) will be canon and will be connected. We’re using some actors from the past, we’re not using other actors from the past, but everything from that moment forward will be connected and consistent.”
"But I know a lot of other times these characters cross around. In Creature Commandos, one of the main characters shows up in Waller."
"We had input on [The Flash's ending] for sure, but there’s nothing we had to do in order to set up our universe."
To further add credence, DC literally calls this article on their website, "James Gunn and Peter Safran on Building a New DC Universe"
https://www.dc.com/blog/2023/01/31/james-gunn-and-peter-safran-on-building-a-new-dc-universe
Again, the wording on his quote about the four projects this year may be shaky, but I seriously think you and some other people here looking way too deeply into what it means. These films aren't going to matter to this new slate of films. Gunn and Safran are just wording things as diplomatically as possible because if either of them flat out admitted they weren't important to his new slate, it would immediately come off as a bad PR move for selling those upcoming films to audiences because then they'd have no reason to watch them, which is also why they're playing it extremely coy in regards to Jason Momoa potentially switching to Lobo, or whether Paradise Lost is related to the current Wonder Woman or a new version of the character. All of these movies were in development long before Gunn and Safran assumed their positions so it's very likely absolutely nothing has been changed regarding them and their status as DCEU movies with the exception of Flash, because that's really the only movie that would require alterations due to the nature of its story to segue more directly into the new films. They're able to openly say that Superman and Batman are reboots because those actors' exits from their roles were made very public in an official capacity, whereas they won't address anyone who is still technically receiving projects until after said projects come out. Everything else is still pointing towards this being a clean slate restart that doesn't warrant a merge with the DCEU content. It'd be way too confusing and would clutter that article signficantly. RebelYasha (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a dispute that this universe is different from the previous one, after all it's a timeline reset. However at least some DCEU films are also a part of DCU. Gunn has explicitly called them so as I've shown. If you won't agree to merging it back, then I suggest at least mentioning that films from Shazam: Gods and Monsters onwards are part of DCU or might be. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Other issues also come up with the fact that all of the "Gods and Monsters" slate are in early development. The only one that they stated was in production is Creature Commandos. It's interesting to point out that there aren't individual articles for the Tim Burton Batman films vs the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. Those are separate continuity, and separate from a real world perspective. The "DCEU" movies into the 'DCU' slate share continuity, something that Gunn and Safran have pointed out... so why would there be 2 articles? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, there should be a different article for the DC Universe (general term) each time they do a new reboot/reality/Elseworlds etc. The discussion here is intended to point out that there is only one DC cinematic franchise at this point. Gunn isn't rebooting the franchise. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I want to point out that whether or not the universe is rebooted in anyway doesn't really matter. There is completely new leadership in charge now. Several significant characters are going to be recast. Regardless of how hard or softly the universe is rebooting, out of universe, this is an extremely major change of direction for the franchise. The DCEU page is due for a content split. This gives a perfectly natural point to do it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By this argument, why wasn't there new articles made for the X-Men when they "rebooted" with X-Men: First Class? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely different scenario. First Class was initially only meant to be a prequel to the 2000's X-Men trilogy a la Origins Wolverine and it was really Days of Future Past that set into motion the idea that it would dissociate the two timelines. On top of that, there are films like Deadpool and TV series like Legion that distinctly complicate and break timeline acknowledgement multiple times to the point where it would be way too cumbersome to tie all those films together seperately.
    With the DCU we know what we're getting. Waller is basically the only thing that's acknowledging anything from the DCEU and per Gunn's words it's only taking into account events from Peacemaker and TSS in a very loose fashion that doesn't even have to acknowledge the wider DCEU timeline, likely due to the fact the show was in development already as a DCEU show before Gunn and Safran took over and started developing their slate. Everything else regarding the Justice League characters is being rebooted from scratch with NO TIES to the old cast and characters like what was meant to be the case with the X-Men films since they still carried over more than just a few loose acknowledgements of continuity. Superman in the DCU is not related to Cavill. It's confirmed now that Batman will not be either Pattinson or Affleck and is essentially another reboot. The Lanterns show is replacing both the previously planned GLC movie and the HBO Max show Berlanti was developing, and Paradise Lost isn't even being acknowledged as connected to DCEU Wonder Woman specifically, just that it takes place before Diana's birth so it is an easy out in the event they likely recast her as well, especially coming off of the reports that cameos related to DCEU characters were removed from the Flash's latest cut. RebelYasha (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if they change it, its still should have its own article.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The announcement and info on this is enough to warrant a full separate article from the previously established DC Extended Universe. Voicebox64 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Agree that this is not only a new franchise but also could not fit well onto the DCEU page anyways. Yeoutie (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per InfiniteNexus. starship.paint (exalt) 07:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per InfiniteNexus, FilmVoyage, and JDDJS.--WuTang94 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per InfiniteNexus, FilmVoyage, and JDDJS.--GhaziTwaissi (talk) 7:14, 5 Febraury 2023 (UTC)
  • Kepp meowmeow \S-) (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Merge I totally agree with DisneyMetalhead. DCU is a continuation of the DCEU. This article should be treated as a chapter of the whole (fractured) franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henjin Dono (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Merge per Aadarshashutosh and DisneyMetalhead Mitchy Power (talk) 10:10, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DC_Universe_(franchise)&oldid=1138173730"