Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Parker (Insomniac Games character)


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Alternative versions of Spider-Man. History will be left intact, so if either it is desired to merge any content or additional notability takes place after release of additional material, that will still be available if needed. Given that, there is no need to send anything to draft; anyone who wants a draft or userspace copy can just do that themself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter Parker (Insomniac Games character)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Most of the reception is for the parent game, and not the character itself, and there's very little reception as is. Development info can be rolled into the parent game too where not already present, and doesn't really warrant a separate article on the character. There's also a heavy instance of synthesis here, such as some of the appearances in other media being claimed as direct nods to this particular incarnation of the character. This fails notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of video games featuring Spider-Man. BD2412  T 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No! Very bad idea. You didn’t say merge. You are saying to redirect a B class sourced article to a very bad list article. This is a GA potential article, the only reason why it didn’t turn GA was that I had Wikipedia burn out or I cancelled the nomination, the list article to merge to will never turn into such just even if you changed it to merge. That is way too careless. Too many editors contributed and appreciated this article for that to happen IMO. Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be entirely clear though, the GAN had a lot of work that needed to be done to pass. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I never got to find out on the second vote to know for sure. I ain’t taking your word it. I could have done all the completed tasks depending on the time and requests for it. I created GAs before. Jhenderson  7 7 7  06:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Creator Keep: This is getting silly at best. Just because reception is not full like you expect. Doesn’t mean WP:GNG is not established. There is other proofs of notability in the article and it would not surprise me there is more reception now that can be added, even moreso in the future, when the sequel coming out. Are you the same editor or same IP that pulled “what about Batman: Arkham character” logic? It wouldn’t surprise me. There is a lot of articles I don’t care to keep, but this is not one of them. I even pushed GA on it one time. Jhenderson 7 7 7  04:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is also B class and had a DYK hook. It seemed to prove the notability quite well when appearing on those. Can we just wait when the sequel comes out? I promise you there will be no “content fork” if someone brings that up as some excuse. It’s probably not anyway, I wouldn’t know. Some of what was here was passed down on the video games articles. Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * First off, assume good faith. Secondly, the second GAN you pushed it for in 2019 even mentioned there was a notability concern. That was literally years ago and yet here things are.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I am assuming good faith. I asked if you are the editor because I don’t know. If so Wp:Otherstuffexists. But I still assume good faith since that’s just an essay. Unless you are the IP. Than that was sockpuppeting. That’s bad! But I don’t accuse, I just ask. Also the GAN had a lot not in it now. They keep adding more info after that. Then I pushed GAN but never got a nominator so I cancelled it due to wikibreaks after a long hatius. A lot was added, even the reception section stuff. That wasn’t me that added it, it was a whole bundle of other editors. There is also at least 12,000 viewers in this article. Let that sink in! Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why that IP was brought up, I've been editing on this account for decades now. Also it being "B-class", having a DYK blurb and 12000 edits doesn't address any of the concerns I mentioned. And I don't see that situation improving just because another game coming out. The article needs to show he is independently notable in this incarnation and it currently is not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * How is the character not notable? Do you read the sources telling he is popular among other proofs within the sources and maybe even more current articles of the character still and notice the article gets a decent amount of views. You were clearly not paying attention, the article grew way more past that nomination. It will most likely do it again if there is a sequel. But I would not crystal ball such a statement (but at the same time) why would you nominate a deletion when it has potential to grow when there is a sequel? I counter your statement that notability is not proven? How is it not proven? Like in my mind, this has more notability than these branched articles of the MCU. How does a decent article with enough content not prove notability? It is even established that this Peter is not the mainstream Peter. Totally different. So it’s not even like the movie version different Peter’s. Ok so you are not that IP, forget it. Answer the question regarding it not proving notability and all the others hopefully. Because I clearly see notability even if I was not the one who started it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop haranguing editors. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Me being replied to when I voted and then I replied back is not harassing haranguing. Jhenderson 7 7 7  05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The reception size is not the seal the deal of notability. Those sources that were used are. You are basing it’s by some reception size which grew in the last nomination. The development and merchandising and ti-ins are indication of notability. Clearly it has a reception larger than MCU branched articles which will grow more when a sequel come this fall. Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the article's reception is adequate. Very little of it actually demonstrates that Peter Parker here is discussed as a subject independent from the Insomniac Games series. I'm not opposed to this article existing, in fact I find the idea pretty fascinating, but in its current state, it does little to show that this incarnation of Peter Parker is notable on his own. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s not even an incarnation. That may be the same named character but the creators pretty much admit the Peter it totally different. It is but it isn’t. I will shut up now that you think my different opinion is harassing haranguing or whatever. Jhenderson 7 7 7  05:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you ignore the actual points I was making about the quality of the Reception section instead to make a comment that's not even accurate? Being an incarnation of Peter Parker makes him a different character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Because I actually made that point before. I can’t reply the same stuff. You brought up the incarnation so that’s just another point. Listen I am not going to spend time debating. A lot of editors voted. A lot more is coming. This somehow got to be a very popular AFD so I am staying out of it and letting the vote merge take place. The verdict is already in your favor. Unfortunately if this article is notable later on, I don’t think I can revive it because I have no time to revive an article. Nobody will probably care to bring it back. It’s dead, Jim! Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect topic into Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series), Draftify article contents per WP:PRESERVE . For context, I recall that there was no separate article about the Insomniac game series at the time this article is created so I didn't see any issue with content forking. Now that there is, a separate article specifically about that series' incarnation of Spider-Man seems redundant since information about the character can easily be redistributed throughout the development and character reception sections. OceanHok proposed that the contents be preserved into a draft and I agree. Haleth (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment / Hold for now. There's another game in the series coming out in just a few months.  I also don't see any warning given on the talk page - which is not required, for sure, but would have been a courtesy given the article has a maintainer clearly invested in the article per above, who might have been happy to trim the article some if asked.  It's difficult to tell right now how much "meat" there is in the sourcing due to the use of weak sources (e.g. CBR) and passing mentions.  That said, it would not shock me if after they were removed, the resulting shorter article might still passes notability, given that the games sold a zillion copies and Spider-Man is extremely popular.  Give the article ~6 months to be cleaned up and/or expanded with the new Spider-Man game coming out in the series, and re-nominate for AFD then if the concerns remain IMO, there's no deadline.  (Canvassing disclaimer: the nominator has linked this AFD in the WP:DISCORD, and I only came here because of that.)  SnowFire (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then that would be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 05:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment to agree to hold, or otherwise 'keep'. Ducatcolge (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that you could find more significant coverage than what is featured in the article right now? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Those sources would be dead by now. So we have to wait on the upcoming sequel for reception. But there is plenty of sources bringing the character up, but it’s all speculation of what is going to happen of the character for now. Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Merge into Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series). Since the creator admitted that there is no more to add and prefer to wait for upcoming sequel then that would fall into WP:TOOSOON + it consists mostly about CBR and passing mentions. (Even thou the game have been released, ill doubt the character receive sigcov othe than the game itself.)  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 05:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No there is notability already proven. You can’t go by reception size? The sources are what says it. i am saying I can’t find the new sources to add. You guys are judging by how the body of article of a section. Also was there not a canvas going on? Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I saw this link mentioned in Discord and went to check. Also, please stop mischaracterizing people's arguments, Greenish Pickle was arguing that the article presently lacks adequate sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn’t really mischaracterize. I just want to know if the sources are adequate. It seemed we are judging on the body article or how it is worded or something. Maybe the article sources weren’t just worded to prove it just yet. 🤷‍♂️ Also can the discord link be shown or something? I don’t know anything about this discord thing. I feel if I can’t dig old PS4 era sources, other people can maybe prove notablility. I just don’t have that skill. But in this case of current sources, they are still talking about the character, but it’s just game stuff for now. Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge. As it is, the article simply does not succeed at demonstrating notability. The design stuff is solid, but without adequate reception, it falls short. There's only a couple sources that are actually about the character in the reception section, and the reception section has a lot of emphasis on comments made in reviews. I'd be willing to assist with work done to clear that bar and get proper significant coverage, but the author's responses makes it incredibly difficult to envision working on this article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok I found the discord convo now. No need to link it to me now. Jhenderson 7 7 7  07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My two cents on it, would think it’s not good to have the community of the video game community behind it. That’s where the discussion began. This and a few other relevant genre articles. An user had the four hearts when he said “God speed friend”. Thankfully that editor didn’t vote.I assume good faith on the OP mentioning all the AFD’s. It’s not like he told them how to vote but it feels like a pat back on backing up their complaints in I just don't like it style arguments with the same community and it felt he really encourages the idea of liking to AFD stuff implying that there is!”worst case scenarios” if a different article is maybe saved by sources. Also I don’t know what the edited out comments said and I am not bothering to know or link the discussion. I have no hard feelings to go that far because I personally don’t think of it that bad. If wrong, second chances are deserved here.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  07:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is going on?? It's not that deep. Everyone in this discussion has given sensible reasons for why they have issues with this article that are not to do with not liking it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what went on until found a convo. The OP questioned its existence and talked about AFD on various articles. He said he would AFD and edited what he originally said. You admitted you saw it so I think you found it by the topic. I also noticed four hearted reactions of encouraging the AFD. It’s best to not know who they were. The funny thing is the argument was not lack of notability but more of complaints and why does this exist? But now video game editors are saying it’s not notable based on the video game essay rules. I want to believe what you said about it not seeming notable, but the first discussion doesn’t imply notability was the only reason and how many people were directed to the site with that link too, it can look that not caring of the article that is relevant of one of many wikiProjects this article had is more what lead to this. I don’t even know why you asked. I brought it up because I wanted to see it but you guys didn’t want to link it so I found it myself. This is all I know. Then I pretty much defended the topic for you but I am still not sure the intent was these notability concerns that you never addressed in the other site. Jhenderson  7 7 7  08:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion in the wikipedia discord was regarding the article's notability. Not "I don't like this", not "This shouldn't exist", but a question of why it was independently separate as its own thing when the sources didn't support it. That was the argument presented here. However instead of actually trying to figure out what might be needed or argue your case you've gone and presumed bad faith at every opportunity and dismissed other editor's own concerns. In fact, the whole point of the discussion was to see if there was something I was missing as to why it was independently separate before bringing it to AfD. So can you please stop being disruptive? This is a mess at this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I am just going by word by word what I saw on text. I even see it by screenshot but I won’t show. What I saw was more accurate to what you really say you said. If you mean it like that, then word it in that way. But I don’t want to talk about it any more. It’s not personal or I would have brought admin intervention to it and I don’t want to do that when it involved a personal article, I still think it maybe helped the vote in your favor when you said you would put it on AFD and brought it up on there but ✌️ and truce on it. Stick to votes now! Also stop with saying I am disruptive and harassing haranguing”. I swear I am not. You guys are just colleagues and know each other to be bias to think that but I swear my debates were being civil when we discussed this.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  09:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Spider-Man or Spider-Man (2018 video game), both are suitable targets Alternative versions of Spider-Man per Zxcvbnm. These needless superhero spinouts are unnecessary. JOE BRO 64  12:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Spider-Man or Spider-Man (2018 video game), per Joebro Alternative versions of Spider-Man per Zxcvbnm. Obvious disclosure, this topic was discussed pre-AFD in Discord, and then overnight (I was asleep), apparently linked once, which was then contested, and the link deleted. We don't really like discussion links like that, but at the end of the day, the population of that channel is WP:VG members who mostly watchlist the WP:VG delsort anyway. ( It'd be good for people to remember DELSORT pages exist. I can promise that everyone who's participated in this AFD thus definitely monitors it Oh wow. I realized this is not DELSORTed. That is indeed problematic, but I will be fixing, and again, these are all common WP:VG AFD participants anyway) Now, a lot of my comments are being referred to, and misrepresented, above. I'm not going to go over that though. So here's my straight position on the actual article: The sourcing is completely misrepresented. Independent SIGCOV is being manufactured through this misrepresentation. The reception section of this article, for example, is entirely sourced to reviews of the game, not the character. Of course, it does discuss some of the details of the character in the course of describing the game, but that's hardly independent coverage. There's also really twisting prose, such as the very lengthy statement regarding EGM's review. Most critically, it makes the claim that EGM praised the character's storytelling. EGM made no such claim. It attributed nothing like that to the character. Every instance the review makes of referring to storytelling is in the context of the game's storytelling. The entire reception section is like this, while details such as Development are almost completely duplicative of the game's own development sections. The rest of the article is a huge run down of "Spider-man appeared in Marvel related properties!" with a lot of OR/Synth in regards to whether any given appearance of Spider man was actually the "Insomniac incarnation" or simply a nod to the game, which is obviously part of branding as the premiere Spider-man video game at this time. Even the Face model controversy is not really coverage of the character as an independent subject, but commentary related to the remastered video game. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man. I generally go right to check the reception not because it immediately proves whether the character is notable, but because it shows whether they should have an article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In this case, there's no evidence the character themselves had an impact outside of the general story of the game. I'm not even certain he's independently notable per WP:GNG. It can't be reiterated enough: no amount of WP:REFBOMBing will substitute for significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh that's a much better target. -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically. Although there is a question as to whether the article passes WP:NLIST - whether the concept of Spider-Man having alternate universe doppelgangers is actually independently discussed in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge - There is simply not enough to support all these Spiderman character articles. We don't need one for ever media/continuity. Sergecross73   msg me  15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since this AFD blew up with an entire wikiproject community that I originally belonged to or still do, that lead to an off wikipedia topic saying the same complaint on here of “reception section sourcing imperfection, reception section sourcing imperfection, reception section sourcing imperfection!” which seems to adhere to the project essay mentality of the burden of proof of notability on original video game characters. I literally concede! Just incubate it since a video game sequel is coming when it merges. I wish I could say I have enough time like I used to to help prove it. But the real world jobs amd hobbies are calling me in my adulting life. ✌️ Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As the discussion is tending towards redirect, the content will be preserved in the history if things change in the future. It's important to remember regardless of the AFD's problematic brief linking off site, if it had been properly DELSORT listed, the same project participants would have shown up. The arguments being presented is that the sourcing available does not represent independent SIGCOV as required by GNG. Please don't cast aspirations on an entire project as having bad faith motivations. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Do me a favor and stop assuming I have bad faith assumptions and am assuming motivations. Enough of the circular logic of such WP:AGF claims. I even disclaimed truce, peace no hard feelings and assumptions of food faith countless times. How many times can I disclaim this? Stop talking FOR me, please respectfully. I feel baited because you keep saying what I do or not do as right and we are getting off track when pointing flaws on the editor and we are not focusing on the vote again. I literally would not message any more if you would stop the pointing finger trope. I said you maybe do personal messages when I saw it. That’s the only hint of this “aspiration”. But it was a form of questioning. So take it with a grain of salt and stop with finding the fault of me with this bandwagon gang up. You were affiliated in the discussion before as colleagues, and now you are of course defending the issue since you were in it. The best thing to do is the Fight Club logic, stop talking about your affiliations about it if you were a part of it. As for everything else you said about redirecting and all, I am pretty familiar. I been a Wikipedia editor for a very long time. 😂 I am not a newb. ✌️ once more. Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting, sorry for prolonging this involved discussion but we have editors voicing support for Delete, Keep, Draftify, and Redirect or Merge with several different target articles suggested. It's hard to find a consensus with editors all over the map here. I want to discourage further tangents on Discord or Video game communities on Wikipedia and just consider whether or not there are enough reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. Just as a reminder, as you all know, an outcome of Redirect or Draftify would preserve the article in case future games and media coverage about them provide additional sources of notability. Things would be more difficult to handle in those circumstances with a Delete or Merge outcome. But, personally, I'm not invested in any result, just taking the temperature of the group discussion. But please, stick to talking about the sources and the article. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There is clearly enough coverage around the specific character's reception, development, portrayal (including their controversies) to warrant a standalone article per WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, the sequel in October will result in even further coverage of the character.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify: If the original creator is willing to work on it, it really doesn't hurt to send the article back to draftspace. After all, a sequel is coming. But right now, there is a lot of overlapping information between the first game, the franchise article, and the character article. OceanHok (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Spider Man series. NYC Guru (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * @Liz Involved, obviously, but I would read a consensus to redirect to Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series), which someone can on their own initiative expand further with whatever useful merge-worthy content exists in the history. I think Draftify is a poor call compared to just redirecting, as it runs the risk of an eventual G13, destroying the history (even if Refund is easy enough). -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I echo my support to redirect this article to Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series). I accept the suggestion that Draftify may not be an optimal solution if the draft does end up being abandoned. Haleth (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the game, this version of Parker seems to be no different or in someway revolutionary in how's he's been portrayed in other forms of media. "He's older" is about all I get from the article that makes him different.Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man - The sources being used for the non-plot sections (development, reception, etc) are, like in many articles on video game characters, actually coverage and reviews of the game itself, where the few sentences in each of them that specifically talk about the character are all being cherry picked out, but are not actually significant coverage. While the games are notable, there is no evidence to show that the version of Spider-Man in them is, himself, a particularly noteworthy version that has the amount of significant coverage that would justify having an independent article. The list of alternate Spider-Men already has a section on the character, and would make the better redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man. I find the work done on this article really impressive, and I can definitely understand why the article creator is unhappy with this situation. But I have to agree with the substance of the redirect arguments above. I feel that this level of granularity, in the absence of sources that directly support it, gets us into the messy territory where WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:GNG converge. I don't think that coverage at this level serves our encyclopedic purpose. -- Visviva (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to make sure it's understood, this is not at all a question about whether the article is well written or if the creator didn't put effort in. They very much did. But the policies just aren't quite aligned. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2023 (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.