Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amazing Spider-Man 21

The Amazing Spider-Man 21 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 15 delete, ~6 keep. Consensus weakly to delete. Cool Hand Luke  22:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete - a long description of one comic book. Nobody's more of a fan of early Spidey that me, but this is ridiculous. - DavidWBrooks 13:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete &#8212;Rory &#9786; 14:17, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is nonsense. Also quotes so much of the text of the comic that it borders on copyvio :-) Lupo 14:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, or I will post synopses in separate articles of each issue of Prez: First Teen President of the USA. Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * don't forget individual articles on relevant items of furniture, translation of chapter titles in different languages etc. --Ianb 15:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm so tempted to say keep just to get all of those articles. Snowspinner 14:15, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems a shame that the amount of effort here is being wasted on a non encyclopaedic (and potential copyvio) article. Someone obviously loves their comics! - Anon. 14:38, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we should make an effort to ensure that the work isn't lost, just in case this contributer doesn't have another copy. It would be a shame to go and delete it on him if he hasn't saved it elsewhere. This shouldn't stop us from deleting it though&#8212;Rory &#9786; 16:22, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is getting plain silly. --Ianb 15:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have articles on individual TV episodes, so why not comics. - SimonP 16:27, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it should be preserved in some form, unless it is considered copyright violation. I found the article quite interesting, and the contributer went to a lot of effort with it. Possibly move it to a more general article on The Amazing Spiderman, with other spiderman comics covered in a similar format, if the contributer or others wish to do so. This way the information can be preserved, but we won't be innundated with pages for every seperate 'episode' (is that the correct term?) of the spiderman comicbooks. - Darksun 16:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's "issue", or, for the very informal, "Ish". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:20, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
 * Delete: Indeed, I think single episode TV shows should not have articles.  I have long argued that once we let one person's "It's not paper, and this meant something to people" preference get in, we were opening the door to individual articles on every baseball trading card ever, every TV show, ever, possibly every small town newspaper article.  I would say that this material should go into the user's private page.  If it is an anon, then he or she is taking the risk of losing the material.  If there is a dedicated Spiderman fan among the Wikipedians who wants to preserve this in user pages until such a time that a rational scheme for issue descriptions can be worked out, then that's fine.  However, long articles on issues of serials are not warranted. Geogre 17:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There's a fine line. Famous comic books should certainly get in (for instance, the issue where Superman first appeared, which has all kinds of trivia and such attached to it). This? I would say not. That said, I think large, notable story arcs like Age of Apocalypse or Crisis on Infinite Earths deserve coverage. Not individual issues. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:23, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
 * This really is a fine line. A lot of work went into this article, but I don't see anything notable about the subject other than the fact it's an early work.  IMO, we should draw a line and this might be a good place to start.  Individual issues, no.  Notable individual issues, yes.  Ditto television episodes.  Moving this one to a user page is an excellent idea. - Lucky 6.9 17:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. I copied the article onto my personal page, which I have decided to use to store articles like this - since the contributer was an anonamous user, he obviously can't keep it on his own unless he registers before it is deleted (if it is deleted). Darksun 18:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 19:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No reason to delete. Keep, send to cleanup.   &mdash;Kate | Talk 20:09, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft, waste of time & resources; WP is not paper but its resources are finite all the same, and should be preserved for deserving content. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * An absurdity. Delete instantly before it starts a trend.  Hayford Peirce 00:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't much care for the way this particular article is done (a synopsis and a bit of analysis and/or context would be much better), but I don't have a problem with such an article existing.  Send to cleanup if we must.  Jgm 02:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this does not appear to be a particularly significant issue of Spider-Man. Note that I am not averse to articles on landmark/important issues of comics. Snowspinner 14:15, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep this and there is precedent for every issue of every magazine (comic book or otherwise) having its own article. That is not encyclopedic. Such information is not without value. To make a comparison, tt would be quite enjoyable and useful to skim through low level summaries of nineteenth century pulp fiction and dime novels, scholarly journals, children's magazines, and so forth, issue by issue, book by book. What was Varney the Vampire doing that month of that year? Perhaps we should have a record of every episode of the Howdy Doody show of the 50s. But if wiki is to be used for this kind of thing, it seems to me it should be another kind of wiki project, not an encyclopedia project. Jallan 19:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Historie Pete 19:15, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see the harm in articles like these--if Wikipedia's foundations are to crumble, it won't be because of an excess of information (so long as it's accurate and well organized, like this article seems to be). Conversely, I think it does a great deal of harm to just thoughtlessly zap away the painstaking labor of a new contributor--poof! Wikisux 00:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. A one-sentence synopsis of this issue on the The Amazing Spiderman entry should suffice. Also possible copyvio. Luvcraft 00:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I realise a fan wrote this, but it's not like it's an article in a longer series, and it's not like this episode had a huge effect on the Spiderman universe! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very fine line, as Lucky 6.9 has said.  Looks like an anon user really tried hard on this article.  It's pretty bloated, so it should be condensed (cleanup). -Frazzydee 02:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.