Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man Movie History


 * 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. Dakota 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man Movie History


Delete as nom. Article utilizes poor grammar, spelling, capitalization, syntax and does not seem to follow naming conventions. Information displayed is largely non-neutral POV and becomes especially worrisome—speculative and inacurrate—as it describes Spider-Man 3. No sources are cited and images are not used sparringly. While an article for the Spider-Man series of films might be nice, this is poor substitute. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. None of the reasons cited are reasons for deletion.  Deletion should be based on the article's SUBJECT (is this a topic worthy of having an article on?), not on the quality of the writing therein.  Tag it for cleanup, but don't delete it.  The article might need a rename/move to a better name, and needs NPOV cleanup, as well as referencing, but the Spider Man movie franchise (as a cohesive unit) is a notable franchise, much like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or Austin Powers.  This is a badly written article, but a notable subject.  Definately keepable. --Jayron 32  05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The whole article would have to be completely erased and re-written from scratch- just googling any random set of words will show it's a copyvio. --Wafulz 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well-intended, but the whole thing is a copyvio from assorted websites and movie descriptions. Anything that isn't a copyvio is original research. Unfortunately, because of the copyright issues in this article, there's no chance of turning it into a useful article like Spiderman film series. --Wafulz 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly redundant article made up of original research, crystal balling, copyvio (e.g. ) and POV fancruft trivia. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article consists of redundant content and speculation. --Metropolitan90 08:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Nothing salvageable.  Postdlf 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, original research, totally redundant, there are copyright problems on the article, so this article has to go. --Ter e nce Ong (C 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT, WP:OR ect ect †he Bread  23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sad Delete It's a shame, but it's just a huge series copyright issues and OR and it could have been something good. Delete it so someone else can make something relevant and public domain. Robovski 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - in principle a valid article but current version has huge problems as documented above. --Matthew Humphreys 09:25, 8 November 2006 (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.