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) SITH (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series)[edit]

Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:CFORK of Spider-Man. A merge is not really required for this one. This does not meet WP:SPINOFF. The franchise the character is associated to is a comic book adaption rather than original creation. Though a popular character, there are many adaptions of Spider-Man/Peter Parker, and they don't really have any notable depth. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT should be considered in this case. Even the franchise (trilogy) itself is merged into Spider-Man in film. Therefore, this might also be considered a FORK of Spider-Man in film, since Spider-Man and Peter Parker are alter egos and the protagonists of the plot. Furthermore, there are no stand alone pages of the character Peter Parker himself (redirects to Spider-Man). THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 17:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 17:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 17:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. There is sufficient coverage of this character as a standalone adaptation, which a development history, character arc, and characteristics distinct from other versions. I would note that we had a similar discussion regarding, e.g., Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe), which resulted in a consensus for keeping the standalone article on the character. bd2412 T 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article under discussion is about a fictional character, as portrayed by a specific actor, in three specific films, and not in any other films or in the comic books or anywhere else for that matter. That is much different than an article about a fictional character.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is for an independently notable specific iteration of the character. It has its own fully encapsulated storyline unique to the series. Therefore, it stands as its own article. bd2412 T 13:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline and characteristic uniquenesses doesn't mean it requires a standalone. Look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This has a mixture of issues and requires more than just a cleanup in terms of its existence. A good example I give is Frodo Baggins. It has a lot of differences between the book and the movie. However, the movie character did not get there own page. The same could be told about Batman in the Dark Knight Trilogy, let alone Bruce Wayne. The fictional notability guideline. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether it "requires" a standalone, one has been written, and contains reliable sources specifically addressed to this topic. It meets the WP:GNG, so I see no conflict there. As for Batman, well WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, example 4. bd2412 T 15:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such a hypocrisy since you were the one who brought up Iron Man. Anyways, can you link me the consensus? Plus you must know that just because a topic has reliable sources, doesn't mean it is notable. This also brings to my another argument, the topic is ambiguous. It has a mixture of content which are FORKed from multiple pages. Is the article about the character Peter Parker (personality and character development), Spider Man (villains and costume design, character depiction and real world significance? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep it civil. I brought up Tony Stark because it is clearly directly relevant. The discussion on the MCU character articles is at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#MCU character articles. If you are a glutton for punishment, you could try to have that article deleted, although it is highly popular, getting well over half a million visits since its creation. There is, of course, nothing wrong with creating a Wikipedia article on a discrete topic using, in part, material scattered across other existing Wikipedia articles. bd2412 T 16:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how relevant the topic is. Also, WP:NOBODYREADSIT. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, carry on with your effort, then. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and reiterating what I said here, "I support a standalone article for Peter Parker as portrayed in Raimi's films, though I think there could be a better article title since this can seem like it includes post-Raimi incarnations. When it comes to writing this kind of content in various scopes, there will always be some kind of redundancy. This kind of scope allows for a focus on character-centric content, putting aside production and reception details that are not directly pertinent to the character. Doing a search engine test, it appears that the book Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe has a chapter called "Playing Peter Parker" that is devoted to Peter Parker in films (though not just Maguire)." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but either rename or repurpose per Erik. There is simply too much encyclopedic content there to fit into any of the parent articles without making them too long or unduly focused on this iteration of the character. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator. - Judging by the comments above, I believe userfication would be the best possible option. Anyone willing to volunteer will be appreciated, for which any action is guaranteed. There is another essay about this type of act which I am unable to recall. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup? Most Wikipedia articles could stand some kind of improvement. There is nothing about this one that is so bad that it should not remain in article space pending further work on the article. bd2412 T 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If merging is not an option, then I see no reason to have an article about a fictional character as depicted in three films only, while ignoring the character's depiction in other films dating back to the 1970s; in the hundreds (thousands?) of comic book stories since 1962; in graphic novels; in books, etc.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+ I also agree wholeheartedly with THE NEW ImmortalWizard's astute observations and cogent argument for deletion.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD

I am leaning on keep. I feel that many characters are indeed notable on their own. Like the Dark Knight trilogy’s Batman, Hugh’s Wolverine etc. This is no different outside of having his own article so far before they have one. A name change and copy edit of all the work is neededthough. This page has gotten popular with the editors who like to add a little too much cruft. (The only reason why my keep is not 100 percent). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources concerning this particular iteration in this subset of the franchise and is a valid split article that should remain as the oppose votes are based mainly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)::[reply]
• I also disagree. Atlantic306 wrote, "... as the oppose votes are based mainly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT." Really? If we're going to cast aspersions, let's at least ensure that they contain a kernel of truth. I am the editor who originally raised concerns about this article, which I had started to copy edit as part of the Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Backlog elimination drive. It quickly became apparent to me that the article consists of a hodgepodge of content from other articles and a few other sources; it lacks coherence; the writing and organization are poor; and the purpose for the article remains a mystery to me. I hope those of you who are voting to keep the article will actually work on fixing its many failings.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD

• Merge to general article on Parker. I hold to the one character, one article view. Do we have seperate articles on Clark Kent (Superman film series) or Tony Stark (Ironman film series)?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess I was wrong. There is Superman (Salkind films) which functions like this, an article that covers one appearance of the role with one actor, even though the role has been covered by at least 4 actors in live film and at least 3 actors in live TV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tony Stark article is at Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe), because the character has appeared in many films in the series that were not specifically "Iron Man" films. bd2412 T 01:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some editors are claiming that I don't have any clear arguments and the proposal is based on personal preference. That is pure ignorance and hence I feel the need to extend my comments. Whenever, I nominate for AFD, I don't usually touch on the content, instead focus on the notability of the topic itself. However, this case is really complicated and difficult. The title is "Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series)," that means it is about the fictional character Peter Parker in the Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. Pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, the content is far more mixed and ambiguous. First of all, I would like to disclaim that I am a huge fan of these Spider-Man films, so that takes away any of the presumption that I dislike the article as a whole. Back to the content, what really is the article focused on? It obviously need a lot of clean up and may not be encyclopedia, but that is not at all my argument for deletion. Let's go section-by-section. The lead seems fine to me, and it is supposed to summarize the whole article, which means I can ignore that for now. Then we come to creation and concept; it start off well by describing the creative initiatives of Parker, only to shift attention towards the actor Toby Maguire, training about his casting, training, future contracts and what not. Then it focuses on Spider-Man, Parker's alter ego; the rest half of the section focuses on the development of the costume of Spider-Man, which is not really about Peter Parker. Then we move to Themes and analysis. It appropriately touches on the characteristics of Peter Parker and character plot, which is absolutely. Then it talks about Raimi's influence, which is fine to. However, then it goes back to Maguire and the films planning and production itself. These could easily be merged to the correct articles. Then, the rest of the article is utterly unnecessary and could easily be removed IMO. You have one entire paragraph devoted to the "Enemies" of Spider-Man, the alter ego of Peter Parker in the fictional world, it is of six paras. Then you have "Fans and Critics", not about the character Peter Parker, but about Maguire's performances and his achievements. This also talks about other Spider Man films and their comparisons, exclusively on the actors' role on Spider-Man, not even Parker. Then you have "Other adaptations", which has little to no connection with Peter Parker or even the trilogy itself (for little I mean not notable). At least, the best adaptions I find being mentioned are that of the films, not the character Parker. Furthermore, there is a so-called consensus reached at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#MCU character articles, which is a whole separated argument. That "consensus" does not work for a number of reasons which I don't want to bring up too much here. TL;DR: the topic of the article is unambiguous and it is an unacceptable content fork of various other topics, Spider-Man, Spider-Man in film, all three of the films themselves, Tobey Macguire and probably others I missed. Cheers. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can something be a "content fork" if it combines content from multiple articles? Wikipedia:Content forking says, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage". Consider the typical Wikipedia reader who is not, like you, "a huge fan of these Spider-Man films". Maybe they know nothing at all of the comic book history, or of any other film versions of the character. If they are interested in learning about the character of Peter Parker as portrayed in the Sam Raimi film series, they should have a single article to read where all that information is in one place. This includes the detail of how the character's costume was designed, and how fans responded to the actor's performance, since the performance becomes inseparable from the perception of the character. bd2412 T 16:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I anticipated the response. As I've explained, this article fails to have a reasonable topic judging from its content. For the title itself, there isn't much of a detail to have a spin off article. Yes, it is okay, to content fork from different articles into one, as long as the topic is concrete, well-established and notable enough. Notability doesn't always depend on the interest of readers, and this article is certainly not convenient enough. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a possible compromise to suggest. In this case I think a reasonable alternative may be to move this to Spider-Man (Sam Raimi film series), and expand it into an article on the trilogy of films as a whole, of which the character of Peter Parker is a primary component. bd2412 T 17:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That might work, and could potentially be a proper content forking from Spider-Man in film and the films themselves. I am not really sure if this kind of conclusions occur in AFD though. That needs a separate discussion. Now that I think of it, spin off of Raimi series seems reasonable since Spider-Man is increasing in films. I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, but they can only recommend to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Nonetheless, at the moment that would be a better option. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this discussion closes without a consensus (it seems to be headed in that direction), then I will file a request to move this article to Spider-Man (Sam Raimi film series) under this rationale. bd2412 T 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very well. Just make sure it doesn't become a fan page under the pretence of having reader's interests. Also make sure it's weighed properly, one of the growing concerns regarding encyclopedic content. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments and 'not broken'. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per BD2412. There is a lot of GNG on this specific subject (per article). These three films were huge. Comparison with Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is also valid. Article is way too big to merge with the general Spider-Man article. Given the subject is specific to its portrayal in three specific films, can't see the WP:CFORK issue. Britishfinance (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.