Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man (1969 film)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  00:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man (1969 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At first I thought this was a hoax-but as it turns out this is indeed real. But it is a fan film. So not sure what to say if this should be here or not. Considering fan films are not quite something that go here, though being the first use of Spidey in a film might be someone notable. If not deleted I say a redirect to Spider-Man in film Wgolf (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason this didn't appear on the AFD list-I had to add it myself on there manually. Wgolf (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Spider-Man in film Delete. I thought this must be a hoax until I googled. However, I'm having trouble finding articles that aren't user-generated content with no editorial oversight. Does a Gawker Media site count as a reliable source? Instinct says no. MisterRandomized (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If we can't source it, we shouldn't even have the redirect around, because there will be no sourced content at the target. MisterRandomized (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But it IS sourcable and IS sourced. Lacking notability for a separate does not mean a topic cannot merit a redirect. And contrary to your "instinct", Gawker and its I09 are acceptable sources for fan films. And as one source you chose to bring forward, I09 is a great review.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I like io9! MisterRandomized (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete based on current content. This is a real fan film (currently available for viewing on YouTube), not a hoax. However, the article is completely unsourced. The plot description, which makes up nearly the entire prose content, is barely in English ("Duma do not like it, but Spaydi approaches him Dr. Doom begins in tselisya Merry spider podbigat to cover up her thoughts on the laser delivers in Spaydi and kills him.") and contains numerous errors (Doctor Doom is not even a character in the film; the main villain is identified as "Dr. Lightning"). The credits in the infobox are inaccurate (Steve Ditko is not credited in the film, and I seriously doubt that he was involved). Furthermore, no information has been provided about the circumstances of the film's distribution (how and where was this film released in 1969?). There are some online articles that discuss this film, so maybe the article can be improved, in which case I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but current state is not a reason to delete a topic that can be expanded through available sources. I note that at the time I am responding here, and due to the editorial efforts of, the article is no longer unsourced... thus underscoring errors in your opinion. While what was first brought to AFD was what you opined on, itnneded work and work was done to serve Wikipedia and its readers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sourcing is indeed hard to find on this, but I found reviews from Geek of Doom, Comics Alliance, and the Reelz Channel. There's also a bit of coverage in an academic text, although I can only see a snapshot of said coverage. A lot of this was buried under coverage of Glut's other stuff (especially his writing for the Spider-Man TV series) and most of what I didn't include were passing mentions here and there. The coverage isn't overwhelmingly heavy and this is a borderline weak keep for me, but I think that it's just enough to justify an article. I won't lose a ton of sleep if this doesn't remain on here, but offhand this looks to be enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY as the stub article improvements since nomination and following 's delete has shown the topic as meeting notability criteria... like it or not.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to keep in recognition of Tokyogirl's efforts on this article, which came to fruition after my prior recommendation. (As an aside, though, I ask the supporters of this article to review whether the main female character of the film is indeed Mary Jane Parker, because I heard no mention in the film of the character's name.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not - the character is never named in the film and in Glut's book he refers to her as the villain's daughter only. She's never given an actual name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the excellent work in establishing notability by Tokyogirl79. For real this time. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep sourcing is fine now.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:04, 30 May 2016 (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.