Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (3rd 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   delete. Courcelles 01:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

This article violates WP:IN-U and WP:PLOT. In-universe “biographies” on fictional characters are completely un-encyclopedic no matter how notable the character is. LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and per Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin, which establishes that plot-summary heavy and source-poor walls of excessive fan trivia are inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Reyk  YO!  04:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, a 85-kilobyte article consisting mostly of plot summaries. As per User:LittleJerry, fictional biographies are not encyclopedic. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a book full of plot of a comic book-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The biggest problem with these stand-alone "fictional histories" is less what they contain (excessive detail can be trimmed through normal editing), but what they don't contain: any kind of real-world context or factual information, i.e., anything useful. An encyclopedic article about a fictional character grounds plot in the works of fiction that depicted that plot. This is absolutely necessary with characters featured in serial fiction, such as comic books, where their "histories" are developed in fits, starts, and retcons rather than by neatly following a fictional chronology. The plot summary is completely worthless for our purposes if it does not show this development. Wolverine in particular is a character whose backstory accumulated over a span of decades, in multiple comic titles and issues; his "mysterious past" was one of his defining characteristics for much of the character's history. But this "fictional history" obscures all of that by ignoring how these stories were actually presented (flashbacks, contemporary stories, dialogue from knowledgeable characters) and in what order. Further, by attempting to make this into a coherent chronology, all this "fictional history" does is try to present the current "official" Marvel Comics continuity for the character: Wolverine as he is depicted in Marvel Comics in 2010. This involves ignoring or smoothing over continuity errors or questions, and a sliding time scale that further obscures and contradicts the real world publication info. The "1970s" section particularly illustrates this well: it states that he met spies whose young son would become Spider-Man, and all of this happens three whole article headers before his adventures with the X-Men. In truth, Spider-Man was in his second decade of publication in the 1970s, and the story about his parents having been spies was a much later introduction (they are depicted as already deceased when Spider-Man's story begins). Wolverine was introduced in 1974 and was made part of the X-Men title the following year, and those stories were set in the present. Marvel can pretend all it likes in its current stories that the stories it published in the 1970s happened in later years, and we can note that conceit, but those are 1970s stories. It's simply unacceptable to give undue weight to whatever happens to be the current canon in fashion, to ignore that some story elements were later introductions or that the stories, when published, took place at a certain time or were premised upon certain depictions that were later altered in subsequent stories. To "fix" this would require a complete rewrite, a start from scratch. A proper History of Wolverine (cf. History of Superman) would track the character's publication history, with perhaps sections on certain character elements: "backstory," "powers", etc., but within those sections still showing how those elements were developed over time and by whom: all of these elements were authored by artists and writers (apparently rather unnecessary facts for "fictional histories"). The main article at Wolverine (comics) already contains a good deal of this history, in the proper order and context, and this "fictional history" adds nothing of merit to that. postdlf (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that the character is not only serialized, but also franchised, so that there are multiple "fictional histories" of Wolverine depicted in comics, television series, and films. I'd wager that more people know the character's story from the films than from reading the comic books, but even favoring the comics as the origin of the character doesn't mean that the comics are any more "true" (and which comics: see Ultimate Wolverine).  Wolverine's story "is" whatever the work of fiction you are presently reading/viewing says it is.  A true history of the character would have to incorporate depictions across the different media, which could be additionally interesting if, for example, after the comic was adapted into the films, the comics then in turn started taking some cues from the film depiction (as happened with Batman).  postdlf (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wolverine is regularly appearing in how many titles right now? Off the top of my head, I can think of four. Writing a coherent history is next to impossible, and finding reliable sources for this article may be even harder. AniMate  16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is actually the 3rd AFD for this article; there appears to be some technical malfunction, as the current AFD shows up in the Aug 15, 2009 log. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, for all the same reasons as at Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin, which resulted in the deletion of that article. Like it, this and other "Fictional history of" articles that are written completely in-universe violate WP:IN-U, WP:PLOT and other policies / guidelines.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Targeting to the FCB in the parent article. For the reeason I had pointed out at the Green Goblin FH AFD. This is a masive plot dump. A massive plot dump that has been nominated before. A massive plot dump that has been nominated before and been defended as just needing to be "fixed through editing". A massive plot dump that has been nominated before and been retained as "Keep, this is an editing issue. Fix it through editing". The attemps to "fix the content through editing" have gone no where and this has moved to the point that this article is being maintained and expanded solely as a plot dump. Wolverine (comics) has an appropriate FCB section to give the in-stoy jist of the character and the "high points". Redirecting at least gives editors a chance to see what can/should be moved off to one of the wikis that are specialized for this content. - J Greb (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CONTENTFORK of the main Wolverine article. Should be covered at Wolverine (comics), and summarized in order to meet WP:SIZE. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —−  Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The AFD for "Fictional history of Green Goblin" has pretty much set down a precedent and convincingly stated that these sorts of articles are simply unacceptable on Wikipedia. Wholly based on primary sources, full of in-universe information and plot summary of interest only to comics fans and not the general public. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kusonaga (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no question this page needs to be trimmed and refocused; however, similar to the precidence set in FCB of GG there is standing precidence for fictional bios of Superman, Spiderman, Dick Grayson, Wonder Woman...  The short is while not all characters merit such a large fork of content (like Norman Osborn), I would believe Wolverine to be first tier character that would require such a page.  A character that appears in nearly 6-10 books a month for the past few years produces much content, and to re-focus the article as a publication history; aligned with aformentioned Fictional character biography of ... (all which may carry a different name, but are still looking and quacking like ducks), would be a better use of the content than a simple delete. -Sharp962 (talk).
 * You'd be surprised by how little has been written about Wolverine by secondary sources compared to Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, or even The Question. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - although "Delete" seems to be the popular choice here so far, I'm inclined to agree with Sharp962. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has been discussed before and no one has bothered to restructure it. We can't simply hope for someone to come along and fix the article. We all agree that in-universe biographies shouldn't exist and using the "maybe someone will fix it" can be used as a shield to protect it while keeping it the way it is. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (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.