Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Spider-Man titles


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography of Spider-Man titles
Fancruft, listcruft. Wikipedia isn't the place for articles on lists of comics. A similar page like this was for Fantastic 4, and got deleted. Spider-Man is very popular, but simply doesn't need this. A link on the Spider-Man page can easily be the solution to this. RobJ1981 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, this is a list of titles, not a list of appearances, and is an index to sub-articles on the various titles and major storylines, some of which are quite significant; it contributes to the all-important out-of-universe perspective; it precludes the necessity of incorporating much of this information into the Spider-Man article. It is virtually impossible to explain that Spider-Man has had multiple simultaneous series in any other way.  Only Batman, Superman, and the X-Men are comparable in that sense.  (I'm slightly baffled as to why the FF page was deleted, though I assume it didn't have the sub-articles--which are really the key issue.) -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS  04:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Bibliographies are certainly encyclopedic. They give those who are studying a topic a starting point for finding more information.  This is too big to fit in the main article, and makes sense as an article on its own. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  08:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per HK and Andrew. - Lex 09:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep while I believe the majority of this article is in fact a fine bibliography, the lower section "significant storylines" is not. Significant is inherently subjective for this sort of article and begs the title of listcruft as article creep from fans inevitably expands it.  I'd say the article should be kept, but maintained only as a list of published works for reference, not fan opinion of what stories are good or not. -Markeer 12:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gone now -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep happily changed my vote then :-) -Markeer 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep --Jamdav86 16:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep practical list/bibliography. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with above comments Timrollpickering 00:35, 14 October 2006 (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.