Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man Strikes Back


 * 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. The "keep" !votes are weak but there is clearly no consensus for any other action. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Spider-Man Strikes Back

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This supposed film has no reliable sources and is just a strung together set of episodes of The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) and can be covered in that article. I redirected it but it was reversed by an editor claiming Notability is not a reason to delete an article. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same notability problem:
 * Spshu (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable.  --Impending IP (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series). It has received some notable coverage and reviews, but the current article has only two sources, and they're both Amazon. The articles is essentially cast and plot, both of which are at the proposed target. I have no objection to the articles being split out after the sourced content is expanded. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The notable coverage you indicate are mostly list articles, blogs or other non-reliable websites thus do not significantly cover any of the three films. (WP:N - "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") The reviews link brings up just space for reviews or short reviews (not over 300 words) not there for not significant reviews (per WP:NFSOURCES "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', ..."). Reliable notable sources do not current exist. Spshu (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Therefore, some of the list articles do count toward reliable sourcing and discussion of the subject. There are some critical reviews if you scroll past the first page of results, but the content is still pretty light. Hence, my !vote to redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To the overall length of the list articles generally they have had trival mentions, not more than a few lines just to be complete. Spshu (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. Though I do agree the article does need more sources.--Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Three editors have said Keep without any further comment. Surely one of you can explain what's notable... Argento Surfer (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely not notable. Article is all plot and the "sources" are from Amazon; I'm not sure what the three "keep" voters above are thinking. Even trying to gather out-of-universe content to improve the article would be next to impossible since a whopping two pages on Google make barely a mention of this picture, mainly by non-viable niche sites like comicreview and rateyourmusic. sixty nine   • speak up •  00:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I found three more sources for the 1977 film: . I would strongly reccomend going through JSTOr and Google Books some more before closing this. These are some of the earliest Spider-Man films, and there is some indication that sources are covering these films in that context. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. These source most just indicated that the films exists and should be covered in WP but not enough signification coverage for their own article. Deseret News article has 171 out of 1356 words (only 12.6%) about the three TV series based films and is not the original sources (Sources: io9.com's "The Secret History of Spider-Man Movies," spidermanfilms.wikia.com, comicbookmovie.com, weminoredinfilm.com's "6 Spider-Man Movies That Almost But Thankfully Didn't Get Made," wikipedia.com). Using WP, WP based sites, WP sourced articles or other wiki powered site (wikia.com) as a source is not allowed. Nor is 12.6% of an article signification coverage. The IO9 has even less about (166 words) the three TV films. And none of the books give signification coverage as the books are not about the three movies, not just about Spider-Man and have brief entries. Spshu (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Selective Merge I listed a few potential sources late last night because I was concerned that the deletion nomination would be closed before a proper examination of all possible sources could be performed. I went through Google Books, JSTOR and a few other places, and I am now of the opinion that a merge is the best option. There were a number of book and a few media sources covering the various movies, but they did not contain much information beyond a plot summary, the connection to the television series and a few interesting tidbits about the production. All in all, I think that these films are extremely relevant to the history of Spider-Man, but that the coverage is just not substantial enough to write a fleshed out article. (Most of the articles do not have many citations to reliable sources, which is why I am proposing a selective merge of the limited cited content). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be a legit, made for TV movie (though low budget). Authorised Spider Man Marvel movie, so can't see any reason not to keep it, when others of it's nature are notable for Wikipedia. Article does need more sources. It has its own IMDB page. [[[User:Deathlibrarian|Deathlibrarian] (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not an indicator of notability.★Trekker (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added a review from British Mag Time Out https://www.timeout.com/london/film/spider-man-strikes-back Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per the WP:NFSOURCES section of Film notability indicates like the IMDB, "capsule reviews" which are reviews up to 300 words. The Time Out is clearly less than 300 words. --Spshu (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2017 (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.