Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Discussion regarding editorial decisions should continue at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional history of Wolverine
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The whole article as the title indicates is a plot summary. A development history of the character would be fine but this? no. In addition to the fact that we don't write plot summaries, the article is inherently misleading because it presents the history as a linear narrative when none exist and therefore is original research (because the dating of some events is unclear and you have to guess where to place them). Cameron Scott (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Unwarranted content fork. Basically one big in-universe plot summary. Not even worth merging into the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Keep but needs to be sourced. Also check the what links here to see how many red links it would make. And it is a popular page. Average of 600+ hits per day and sometimes more than 1k.Mark E (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly Merge to Wolverine (comics), albeit only in extremely truncated form. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wolverine (comics), heavily truncated. A 92-kilobyte in-universe history character about one single comics character is really not needed. J I P  | Talk 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Popularity is not a valid rationale for keeping it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - while it can be agreed that the current construction of the article into a faux lineation is problematic, it is not irresolvable. The article, and others similar, have been nominated, and the nfailed to come to consensus regarding deletion. Regarding this article, 3rd party sources about storylines and fictional history are availabe in abundance, ,. The creation of a fictional history provides help to manage a popular and ever-growing page,. This page needs to exist to create a centralized point to manage such fictional material, which has merit due to the iconic nature of the character (regardless of how well or poorly it has been managed).-Sharp962 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Most of the prose that bloats the page sizes here is plain junk. If you remove all the in-universe OR, you can deal with the bits of Wolverine's history that can be cited to reliable third-party sources in Wolverine (comics). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to the parent article. It looks like it relies completely on primary sources and is an overly detailed content fork. AniMate   draw  09:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs to be properly sourced and fixed to include a development history of the character. If that proves impossible, we can always merge the most pertinent bits back into Wolverine (comics). BOZ (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But why would we have a development history in a fictional history? Why not just have an article on the development history and avoids those problems to start with ?--Cameron Scott (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or *merge  equally reasonable for a major character at the center of multiple series. The key thing is the kkep the information. The advantage ofmerging is that a good deal of the necessary material duplicates; the advantage of keeping separate is clarity. I totally disagree with the idea that when merged it should be drastically cut, except with  respect to the duplication--admittedluy, there's quite a lot of it.    DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 22 August 2009 (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.