Deletion of Fictional history of Spider-Man (2nd nomination)

Comment: Although I personally think the article should be kept, or at worst redirected, and better fleshed out with sourcing, I feel like I have to say that removing things like  from the  policy article is, in itself, NOT a valid way to make an argument... at least if you're then going to make the argument that  isn't a part of policy; in other words, I agree with Pixelface in part, but feel that his preceding argument loses a lot of value for his having twice removed that chunk of  in the last few days... disappointing to see that happen
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:NOT||WP:PLOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: per  .  ''Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.'' An article like this should be around for a purpose, there has to be a reason why Spider-Man's history needs to be condensed into a single article rather than citing relevant historical points in articles that discuss Spider-Man in relation to the ''real world''.  As it stands it is more of an #OR|essay
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: The article fails , , , ,  (if you read the article carefully, you'll see what I mean about the original research riddled throughout it). Page also has a huge problem with |meeting the fair-use criteria for all of those images. The page does not appear to be anything more than a rehash of other pages all lumped into one location (that's why we have a template with links to pages where all of this information exists). The very title of the article suggests that it will never be anything more than a page detailing the plots of all of the different Spider-Man publications, which it not Wikipedia's goal. That is why we have Wikias, so that information like this can have a home without complete loss
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:FICT||WP:PLOT||WP:WAF||WP:NOR||WP:FUC)

Comment: to Spider-Man. I am sympathetic to the long fictional backstory, but plot summaries serve to give context for real-world content, which this article fails as a separate entity. Trim, and add the necessary real-world content to the Fictional history article to satisfy #PLOT, and you'd end up with a copy of Spider-Man, so you might as well merge it Spider-Man in the first place. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The nomination makes tendentious claims of consensus but we see that this article was at AFD just a few weeks ago and the consensus was that it should be kept.  The nomination therefore does not respect consensus and is a disruptive repeat nomination per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: per . Entirely in-universe with no real world relevance. Consists entirely of |excessive plot detail and |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION||WP:PLOT||WP:OR)

Comment: A lot of the keeps here seem to consist of "it's a valuable spin-off article from Spider-Man".  However, I haven't heard a very convincing reason which justifies why this article, by it's very definition, should be allowed to violate .  Why are sub-articles somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: Violation of  not to mention -U.  I don't see why plot information can't simply be included on the main Spider-Man article; yes, there's lots of it due to 40+ years of stories, but we don't need to describe every story in such detail.  People have argued in the previous AfD that merging would clutter the main Spider-Man article, but not if the info was summarised.  PLOT states "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work."  Therefore, an independant article dedicated to detailed plot information violates that policy.  Yes, it can be acceptable to branch out into a specific sub-article if an article becomes too long, but the Spidey article isn't even that big, and per , "just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate."  An article like Publication history of Spider-Man could work if the Spider-Man article ever did become excessively long, but the title "Fictional history of Spider-Man" just encourages in-universe information and the article is inappropiate.  While I'm sure readers would find this biography useful, it's really more suited to the http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Peter_Parker_%28Earth-616%29 Marvel Database than Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:IN||WP:WAF)