Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashbacks (comics)


 * 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. A discussion on merging to Fictional history of Spider-Man is in order on the article talk page, if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Flashbacks (comics)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article focuses on a single issue of Amazing Spider-Man, and is mainly a plot summary. I don't think this one issue is important enough to warrant its own article. Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't even appear to be any attempt to come up with even a half-assed attempt at claiming it's notable. DreamGuy (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In universe, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —J Greb (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Nothing wrong with plot summaries, that's how every book article is anyway. The story was notable enough to be reprinted in a hardcover book, along with other notable tales.  The comic and the hardcover reprint are reviewed by third party media sources, such as IGN.   D r e a m Focus  22:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to ask: Have you ever actually read any of our policies? I see you vote Keep on tons of AFDs with rationales that in no way, shape or form follow the rules of this site. Long plot summaries are specifically mentioned on WP:NOT as unacceptable here, and merely being reprinted or trivially discussed on some fan sites is not even close to a justification for having a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it says it shouldn't be nothing but a plot summary, and nothing more. It does not complain about how long it is.
 * Plot summaries without indication of the work's real-world importance. The coverage of a fictional work should not be entirely plot summary articles require evidence of notability, which can only come from outside sources.
 * There is more to this article than just a plot summary.  D r e a m Focus  01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out similar at Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt and this article has pretty much the same problems. Some of the difference though are:
 * Inclusion of a stand alone issue in a tradepapberback is less than trivial. Unless it's something like the Essentials line, it is more likely the publisher either A) filling pages or B) getting all the issues in. Neither case invokes "notability".
 * This one actually has the potential for more context with the "Inspiration" section. Though that should have more sources than just the pat on the back piece Marvel published in lieu of a letters page. It should also precede the plot section.
 * Indexing the individual issues really isn't a good idea unless there's solid secondary references to them. "Flash of Two Worlds" is a fair example of this. But cases like this article... there are over 1000 issues of Spider-Man comics. Even allowing for story arc articles that would cover 2 or more issues, that would still generate hundreds of articles like this one - notable only because they bridge from the "previous" article to the "next".
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep if possible, or merge/redirect to Fictional history of Spider-Man. BOZ (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I have already given my reasoning on Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt. If I had the time I suspect I could improve notability but there is a broader issue on whether this (and the other similar storylines that were nominated in the other AfD) need their own article - you could add interviews and reviews for most storylines from major titles produced by the Big Two but I suspect we don't want that and perhaps we need further more general discussion (and a merge to Fictional history of Spider-Man). (Emperor (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep Evidently notable - I found a source for this quite quickly. I do like the sound of Homem-Aranha. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How does that indicate notability?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTPLOT. Redirect per Boz if this is a conceivable search term. Eusebeus (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is just as significant, informative and as any other Spider-Man storyline articles we have. And the story is notable enough. I don't see why you should delete it but if you do I do recommend you merge it in Fictional history of Spider-Man as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 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.