Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Spider-Man (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Spider-Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fictional history of Spider-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

What more do I need to say beyond the title "fictional History of Spider-man"? We don't write in-universe fictional histories of characters. We write real world perspective encyclopaedia articles that keeps recaps of plot to the bare minimum and concentrate on what third party reliable sources (which this has none of) have to say about the cultural and historical significance of a character. This article doesn't cut it in any way shape or form nor can it be made to because it's structure and purpose are so out of line with every policy we have. The MOS (and a dozen other policies) is clear and explicit about this - we don't have articles that are just fictional biographies, we don't write articles that are just to provide descriptive accounts of fictional happenings - we do not.

I Quote "An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become". Cameron Scott (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The nomination makes tendentious claims of consensus but we see that this article was at AFD just a few weeks ago and the consensus was that it should be kept. The nomination therefore does not respect consensus and is a disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? that's a quote not my own words. Would you like to rephrase your accusation? As for "disruptive repeat nomination" - that is in regards to repeat noms by the same people in a short period of time (there is a space of 4 months between noms). I was not involved in the first AFD and have never edited this article. I have read it and concluded that it should not exist - that's is my reason for nominating it. This article is just one lengthy plot summary, much of which is just a repeat of what is covered in individual articles. If I removed the in-universe perspective and the duplication, we would be left with two paragraphs. The function provided by this article would be better serviced by a "list of spiderman storylines" which would link to the article that we have on the individual storylines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal; just that I have read your nomination and concluded that it should not exist. Your explanation of how this material might be better presented fails to explain how deletion will assist this. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does "a few weeks" become "a couple"? The point is that it is too soon to claim that we need to go through this again to try to get a complete reversal of the result. The correct process for overturning recent results is WP:DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me you're not seriously suggesting that a minor misquote negates my whole point. As Cameron Scott said, the limit is four months. It has passed, and it's a valid AfD. Your speedy keep vote is invalid, period. JuJube (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no formal limit but common sense indicates that at least a year is required to avoid vexatious disruption. Cameron Scott has brought nothing new to the subject and this discussion is just generating tiresome drama to no useful purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Previous consensus still applies, and I agree. Viable spinoff article, notable sub-subject, reliably sourceable. The article is overly reliant on primary sources at the moment, but that's not a deletion argument. gnfnrf (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violation of WP:PLOT not to mention WP:IN-U. I don't see why plot information can't simply be included on the main Spider-Man article; yes, there's lots of it due to 40+ years of stories, but we don't need to describe every story in such detail. People have argued in the previous AfD that merging would clutter the main Spider-Man article, but not if the info was summarised. PLOT states "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Therefore, an independant article dedicated to detailed plot information violates that policy. Yes, it can be acceptable to branch out into a specific sub-article if an article becomes too long, but the Spidey article isn't even that big, and per WP:WAF, "just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate." An article like Publication history of Spider-Man could work if the Spider-Man article ever did become excessively long, but the title "Fictional history of Spider-Man" just encourages in-universe information and the article is inappropiate. While I'm sure readers would find this biography useful, it's really more suited to the Marvel Database than Wikipedia.  Paul  730 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valuable spin-out of the large Spider-Man article. Failing that, merge a succinct version into the parent article and redirect. BOZ (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:PLOT. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. An article like this should be around for a purpose, there has to be a reason why Spider-Man's history needs to be condensed into a single article rather than citing relevant historical points in articles that discuss Spider-Man in relation to the real world. As it stands it is more of an essay. Themfromspace (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This article can be sourced to third party sources (heck, even Stan Lee's 1974 Origins of Marvel Comics--not the new one--was published by Simon & Schuster). there is a non-trivial amount of coverage about Spiderman's origins and what those origins say about our fears as a society (how the origin story changes over time). Try the Journal of Popular Culture for a set of peer reviewed articles. Or The Creation of Spider-Man. That said, the article as written fails WP:PLOT, WP:NOR and practically serves as a gallery of fair use images. So I'm neutral. My suspicion is that like Phoenix in popular culture, this article will be kept and remain in its current condition indefinitely. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't an "origins" or a "development" article. This article is explicitly geared towards providing an in-universe fictional history. Now you could say "well retitle and go from there" but you'd still be forced to delete all the content and start from scratch anyway. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but there is also sourcing to support a much shorter fictional history article. I mean, this is a comic series that has run for decades and is extremely popular. there will be some sources on the subject. I agree with you 100% that this article in particular doesn't look anything like what that hypothetical article would look like. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional history of Batman from 1956 to today is covered in eight paragraphs in the Batman article. If someone wanted to spin that out to a "publication history" article for Batman and do the same for Spider-man, I would vote "keep" for both. I cannot do that for an article that is designed to provide an in-universe perspective. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't claim that my view on the subject delegitimizes your view. I just feel that it it is possible for this article to turn into one that meets the inclusion guidelines without a deletion in the middle, we shouldn't delete it. We may have to wait some time for an editor to come along and fix it, but it will happen at some point. I don't think it is terribly likely for this article, hence my "neutral" above. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thank you for taking the time to articulate your point, but let me just say I'd expect Amazing Flying Spiderpig (or maybe Peter Porker) go past my window before that happens ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't - it's entirely composed of primary sources. That does not equal a "very heavily sourced article" it represents an article consisting of primary sources which is not the same thing but for some reason people think that it is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are the best sources for matters of canon and quite acceptable per WP:RS. There are thousands of other sources which we might add but there is little need. Is there any fact presented which you find to be dubious or untrue or are you just reaching? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:RS states that works of fiction are only reliable as primary sources that should only be used for plot summary and that "primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an anayisis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources." Furthermore, "Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." Themfromspace (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off article from the main article on Spider-Man and its nature gives it a particular focus upon canonical sources which is reasonable and sensible. The article gets over quarter of a million hits per year and so is serving our readership well. Are any of the facts presented disputed? If not, then nit-picking about sources is just tendentious wikilawyering. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above; in short, the character is SO famous, that a sub about the decades-long evolution of the character seems appropriate, imho -- with some work, could be sourced better, I agree on that. JasonDUIUC (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument isn't about sources but notability. Spin-off articles are still articles so they still have to abide by the WP:GNG. Certainly Spider-Man is notable himself but his long detailed history is another story. If it isn't notable than it shouldn't have been spun out to begin with and needs to be trimmed to the point where it helps the real-world discussion of the main subject. Themfromspace (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not being clear enough on my opinion here. Due to the 40+ year nature of the character, and the incredible amount of information/interest out there on the subject matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to consider a synopsis of the character's history (yes, fictional and plot driven as that might be), if only to help illuminate the larger article(s) that rely on the character itself. As Protonk notes above, it's definitely NOT a perfect wiki article by any means, but it does have the sources needed, and imho, the notability (not to mention practical necessity) to remain a wiki article. My .02; cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Forks are perfectly acceptable alternatives when a merge is undesirable due to the lengths of the respective articles, as is gratuitously the case here. A merge, which has been argued for by some, would actively hurt the parent article. Saying that a character is notable while refusing to describe the fiction in which he appears is absurd. Ford MF (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit down. Currently, it contains a fannish overabundance of detail that is irrelevant to the general-interest audience at which Wikipedia is aimed. The denseness of its in-universe minutiae renders it less-than-useful to that audience since it gives equal weight to major and minor events, creating a confounding and frustrating lack of context and perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit down and merge, or week delete to Spider-Man. I am sympathetic to the long fictional backstory, but plot summaries serve to give context for real-world content, which this article fails as a separate entity. Trim, and add the necessary real-world content to the Fictional history article to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT, and you'd end up with a copy of Spider-Man, so you might as well merge it Spider-Man in the first place. – sgeureka t•c 08:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep on the grounds that the article passed AFD with a keep decision only 3 months ago. Articles should not be renominated in such a short period of time. 23skidoo (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It's kind of outrageous to try to re-delete an article only a few months after it passed the last round of deletion-craziness. On the merits, there are similar in-universe histories for a variety of other fictional characters - including other comic book superheroes - and there's no way this should be merged into the existing Spider-man article, as it would be far too long an unwieldy. Fumoses (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move or rename to History of Spider-Man. I see no reason to distinguish the "fictional history of Spider-Man" from the "true history of Spider-Man". That said, this seems to be a hasty renomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PLOT by design. The intent of the article is to be a plot summary, so the problem cannot be fixed by any means other than deletion. Also, declaring speedy keep because of an AFD in June goes against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Jay32183 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Last time around I said "This is a pure plot summary. That can't be edited away." That is still true. I understand that people want to retell the last 40+ years of fictional back story, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for discussing the Spiderman comic book in the real world, not Spiderman's life in the comic book world. Placing the story in context with a brief plot synopsis is fine, but devoting 36 KB to a plot summary is too much. --Phirazo (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A lot of the keeps here seem to consist of "it's a valuable spin-off article from Spider-Man". However, I haven't heard a very convincing reason which justifies why this article, by it's very definition, should be allowed to violate WP:PLOT. Why are sub-articles somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy?  Paul  730 03:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article fails WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:NOR (if you read the article carefully, you'll see what I mean about the original research riddled throughout it). Page also has a huge problem with meeting the fair-use criteria for all of those images. The page does not appear to be anything more than a rehash of other pages all lumped into one location (that's why we have a template with links to pages where all of this information exists). The very title of the article suggests that it will never be anything more than a page detailing the plots of all of the different Spider-Man publications, which it not Wikipedia's goal. That is why we have Wikias, so that information like this can have a home without complete loss.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we' don't have wikias. they are not WMF projects, but a separate profit making enterprise. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable sub-article of Spider-Man#Fictional character biography. It just has a poor title. This was kept less than 4 months ago and I don't see what's changed this that AFD. If the biography is written in an in-universe perspective, rewrite it. The MOS is not a policy, so your claim that it's "structure and purpose are so out of line with every policy we have" is dubious. And WP:PLOT never had consensus to be policy in first place. It creates a blatant conflict of interest with the for-profit wiki Wikia, as it is used as a tool to ship off and profit off material that exists on Wikipedia. WP:NOTE isn't a policy. WP:FICT is just an essay. If the article contains original research, remove it. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean WP:PLOT never had consensus to be policy in the first place? It's a part of WP:NOT which is a policy backed by community consensus. By definition, you are wrong. Also, "It's just an essay" is not a valid argument. The article is not an acceptable sub-article, since it fails WP:SS, read the section with the WP:AVOIDSPLIT shortcut. Jay32183 (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Although I personally think the article should be kept, or at worst redirected, and better fleshed out with sourcing, I feel like I have to say that removing things like WP:PLOT from the WP:NOT policy article is, in itself, NOT a valid way to make an argument... at least if you're then going to make the argument that WP:PLOT isn't a part of policy; in other words, I agree with Pixelface in part, but feel that his preceding argument loses a lot of value for his having twice removed that chunk of WP:NOT in the last few days... disappointing to see that happen. JasonDUIUC (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP NOT describes what we do here. Plot summaries of reasonable size are normally kept, if they are about the central characters of important fiction. Accordingly the general understanding of NOT PLOT, through all its permutations, has been that the WP coverage of a subject should not be limited to plot only. It isn't. This is the spinout article of what otherwise would be an excessively long and confusing main article. WP coverage of spiderman is not limited to plot. How we arrange these into articles is a matter of editorial judgment, not notability. And primary sources are acceptable verification for this, and I am further not convinced that sources could not be found by those who know the secondary literature on this type of fiction. DGG (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that section of the guideline is in contradiction with the guideline as a whole, and with the lead section, both of which talk primarily about the need to avoid excessive length. We therefore get to use our own judgment. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in contradiction to the guideline as a whole; It is a reminder not to game the system. Summary style is a way to deal with excessive length. It is not a way to circumvent other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTE, which is the way of determining which subjects get stand-alone articles. Read entire guidelines; don't just take the parts you like. Failing to understand how guidelines work is a terrible argument. Jay32183 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (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/Fictional_history_of_Spider-Man_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068875871"