Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Green Goblin


 * 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. First, it is clear that the rough consensus leans toward deletion. Second, the arguments for deletion (mainly WP:CFORK, WP:FICT, and most importantly, lack of secondary sources) refuse many, but not all, of the reasons for retention. –MuZemike 18:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Green Goblin

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article fails both WP:V and WP:NOT, and this state is irreparable. First, WP:V includes this key sentence: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This article cites 119 sources, of which 1 (count them, 1!) source meets that standard. That single source supports a single sentence about the plot. There is no way to rewrite this article to the point that it is based on reliable, third-party sources, because they do not seem to exist. I can hear the screaming already But WP:V permits the use of primary sources!". It certainly does, but it doesn't permit articles to be based on them, which this one is. Further, WP:NOT states that "Wikipedia articles should not be ... Plot-only description of fictional works." This article is a plot-only description. A filtered plot description, perhaps, but the only thing it contains is plot elements. Logically, the only thing that can be in a fictional history of a character is plot points: it can't contain anything else and still be a fictional history. Thus, there is no way for the article to be improved to survive WP:NOT. As the article fails to meet two fundamental policies, and cannot be improved to pass them, it needs to be deleted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A very encyclopedic topic, which helps people understand a notable character that has been around for decades, and featured in many notable comics and well reviewed story arcs, as well as the various animated series, and even in major films, plus other merchandising. There is too much information to fit comfortably in the main article, so this is a valid content fork.  Many parts of this have links to main articles about specific story arcs they have been in which are notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own articles even.  These all got reviews, which of course mentioned the Green Goblin character.   D r e a m Focus  08:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —  D r e a m Focus  08:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment see also Green Goblin which covers the same ground. This should redirect there. pablo 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Merge  Redirect per the nominator. I did merge this article but then I suffered edit conflict from User: Dream Focus for it. I understand his point though for I did do it without patience. −  Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Can you describe what parts of this article need to be preserved and explain why? Does the material at Green Goblin actually require expansion?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Redirect - IIUC there has been an effort to prune the material down for the "Fictional character biography" for the main article. If that effor is done, or progressing steadily, everything should be fine. As for the extended in-stoy bio being "very encyclopedic" and needed for readers to understand the character... part of that rings true. Part of if flys in the face of guidelines. Yes, there is room to argue that the bio deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. But we do have clear guidelines on content. Those guidelines include not using articles as plot dumps. By definition, a long article that has less than 1% of it's references from something other than the primary works is a massive plot dump. As for it bing needed for understanding, no. And if we were brutally honest, to give a reader a handle on almost any character in fiction, very little in the way of an in story bio is necessary. There is latitude allowed when an article also incoperates secondary, preferably third party, sources. That latitude doesn't exsist here. On a couple of side notes: First: Extended articles on the Green Goblin have a place in more specialized wikis or reference works. External links can be provided to those. And to a degree, the Comics Project has templates set up that enourage ELs to "Marvel Databaes" on Wikia and "Marvel Universe Wiki" at Marvel's official site. Secopnd: Wikipedia articles on well reviewed story arcs are welcome, when the secondary sources provide more than just a justification to post a plot dump. Such articles can be pointed to from from the main Green Goblin article either in a "See also" section or using Seealso from the FCB. - J Greb (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Can you describe what parts of this article need to be preserved and explain why? Does the material at Green Goblin actually require expansion?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Long and short? It looks like most of the "highlights" have already be transferred. (It looks like the section of Green Goblin still needs a through copy edit, but that is a discussion for another place.) If one were so incined, they could see if any of this could/should be copied to Norman Osborn (Earth-616), Green Goblin, or Green Goblin (Norman Osborn), that that is something that can be done after this is turned into a redirect. - J Greb (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the proper place for such discussion. You've argued for merging in response to my call for deletion. I still maintain that the article can be completely eradicated, as there is nothing in it worth keeping. If you wish it to be merged, you need to identify at least one section that needs to be transferred.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Small clarification: If this article is simply redirected, which is reasonable, any editor can still view the last "full" version and see if the off Wikipedia articles are missing something. If the article is deleted, only admins on up could do that. If it is your contention that this AfD is the venue to discus removing/editing Green Goblin, I disagree. Last I checck that type of discusion would done in normal course on Talk:Green Goblin, either as normal discusion about improving that article or as an RfC. Lastly, in part you are right, my "first look" wasn't much. "Merge" is a little short of the mark here - it already has been - "Redirect" is more appropriate. - J Greb (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As we've had this discussion before regarding Fictional history of Spider-Man, this fictography directly contradicts every Wikipedia guideline about writing about fiction and about primary sources. It is a hyper-detailed page that could only be of interest to fans, with way more in-universe jargon and references than any general reader could or would ever want to wade through. Wikipedia should not be a free server for fan sites, which is all that the page is. No scholar, academic, student or other such encyclopedia user wants or needs all that. Only a fan does. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try clicking random article a few times to see numerous examples of hyper-detail such as Anaal Nathrakh (yet another grindcore band), Łapy-Łynki (yet another village in Poland), Long-tailed Mountain-pigeon (yet another bird), Bruce Lemmerman (yet another football player). Detail of this sort is what we do and there seems to be no basis in policy for discriminating against particular topics because you don't like them or their readership and there is, in fact, a policy which forbids this.  Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia serving a general audience &mdash; the entire world.  If you want to work on a more exclusive project, then please try Scholarpedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those articles seem to contain 'hyper-detail'. Had you linked to a football player article which contained a synopsis of every game he had ever played, you might have had a point, though. pablo 10:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree entirely with Kww. There is no conceivable way this article can satisfy WP:V through regular editing. The article on the Green Goblin contains well and truly enough back-story, so I doubt it would be improved by dumping anything from this article into it. I also think Tenebrae has a strong point regarding scope. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia aimed at all readers and therefore everything we present should be written so as to be relevant to all. We are emphatically not a free webhost for fansites. If you want to cobble together your fan interpretation of the primary sources, go to a wikia or a fan forum. Don't inflict your speculation, arguments about continuity and canonicity, and general fan chatter on Wikipedia and its readers in the guise of an "encyclopedia article"- because this stuff isn't. Reyk  YO!  00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything is verifiable, that requirement easily met. And only those interested in the character would read this article, just as only those interested in articles about history, science, or whatnot would read articles about them.  And you don't need any fan interpretations.  Marvel released in 2009 an issue called Dark Reign - The Goblin Legacy which list every aspect of the Green Goblin's(Norman Osborn)'s history.  Any information in question can be tagged with a citation needed tag, and a page can be found to reference it.   D r e a m Focus  03:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V doesn't merely require verifiability, it requires that the article be based on independent, third-party sources. Nothing released by Marvel could qualify.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, search that file for "primary" and see the part that says "While primary sources are normally welcome, there are dangers in relying on them." The danger being whether you can trust them, and in these sorts of cases, yes you can, as I have explained.  It tells you to see WP:PRIMARY for more information.  And once there you will find "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully."  And it goes on from there giving examples on that page of some cases where using primary sources is just fine.   D r e a m Focus  03:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that an article can make no use of primary sources, simply that it cannot be based on them. Those are two significantly different things. This article is based on primary sources, and that is not in compliance with WP:V. Please read the deletion nomination carefully, and respond to the points made. The Green Goblin is certainly notable, but this article fails WP:V and WP:NOT. You've said nothing that refutes that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a valid content fork. If the main article is too crowded, don't destroy valid content, just stick it in a side article.  Makes things easier for viewing and some have trouble with loading pages that are too long.  And there are reviews for the various story arcs confirming the information there.  That is a significant part of the article.  These arcs have their own articles, so just copying over the references there, to different reliable sources that have reviewed them, shouldn't be too much trouble.   D r e a m Focus  04:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus has had his say -- and his say again, and his say again, just as he did in the Spider-Man discussion. He is behaving obsessively and fanatically for his own pet project that virtually no one else supports. He simply wants to use Wikipedia space as his personal fan pages, no matter what everyone else wants. Dream Focus, you made your point at the start of this thread. Let other people make their points without constant badgering. That's not fair to the other editors, and shows no respect for points of view other than your own &mdash; all you're attempting to do is wear other editors down. If your point were truly valid, you wouldn't have to do that. Let other people talk without your constant interjecting and interrupting, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop with your personal attacks against me. You are constantly using slander, and strawman tactics.  We are discussing it, which is what AFD are for.  Someone wants to quote a policy, then I'll quote another section of it to clarify my position.  This is how discussions are suppose to be done.  If you don't want to discuss things, then don't bother responding.  You tried your best to destroy a similar article, arguing nonstop on many different pages, but were unable to get your way and destroy it.  That is because the majority of people that looked into it and took the time to comment their opinions wanted it kept, not just because one person wanted it.   D r e a m Focus  14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you can stop.
 * Some of Tenebrae's comment was out of line. Guessing about another editor's motives is bad. Doing so just to put that editor in a bad light does broach WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. However, pointing out that an editor does tend to shout down others in these types of discussions doesn't broach those.
 * And some of Dream Focus' actions questionable. Adding random or additional arguments - as seen here and here - instead of either answering/responding to specific posts or asking a question of specific editor doesn't help things along. It also doesn't help that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be in play. Answering posts or forming arguments based on only part of a point made or using only the part of guidelines you like can wind up hurting the process, not helping it. Also, edit summaries like "anyone with comic books please help add additional references" totally misses the point of one of the fundamental problems here.
 * Last few things:
 * The notability of a character from a work of fiction does not necessarily extend to all aspects of that character.
 * The notability of a single story or story arc does not necessarily extend to all elements of the story or arc.
 * The notability of one story or arc among many in serial fiction does not extend to the other stories or arcs.
 * Secondary sources tend to provide material for "Publication histories" - "We doing this to make him more badass" is how the writers/editor/publisher are using the character - or critical commentary - a reviewer putting the character in real world contact or a literary dissection of the character.
 * Wikipedia guidelines all but bar articles that totally or almost totally plot summaries. An article that is 99.9% sourced to the original comics and written solely in an in story tone is totally plot summary. This is not careful use of primary sources, it comes very close to an abuse of primary sources. Nor is it a desirable content fork, it smacks of an attempt to retain material that would have rightly be judiciously and objectively removed from the primary article to reduce its bloat.
 * - J Greb (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If enough of the historical events listed in the article have coverage, as they surely do, then the article has proven itself notable. Once that is done, not every single item/story arc has to prove itself to be included. And concerning my questionable actions, I wasn't just adding in random arguments, but stating where to find additional information for this. Best to do it down there where it will be seen. I've been discussing things on the talk page of the article as well.  D r e a m Focus  16:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination acknowledges that there is at least one good source here. The article is obviously a spin-off from our main article about the Green Goblin.  There is therefore no issue of deletion to consider here as the worst case is that we would merge into that article.  The proposition is therefore disruptive ("disrupting progress toward improving an article") contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. My contention is that there is no content in the article worthy of being preserved. It should be deleted, not merged or redirected.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT. lacks significant third party sources to make it an article. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you accept there are at least some third party sources though?  D r e a m Focus  14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Every major event that happened in the Green Goblin's history, has coverage somewhere these days. Wired magazine  wrote about the character as he was before, and how they were remaking him as the Iron Patriot to be more badass for today's audience.  There are 313 Google news results when searching for "Norman Osborn" AND "Green Goblin".  Just "Green Goblin" by itself receives 3,900 results.  That's a lot to sort through.  Searching for the names of each story arch or historic event helps narrow it down.   D r e a m Focus  14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the article is about what happened after Dark Siege, which of course has ample third party coverage in reliable sources for all of that. The part concerning Gwen Stacy giving birth to twins, I added a reference for from a major newspaper. The historical event of Gwen Stacy's death, and the and the Green Goblin Reborn! story arc, are mentioned in every book published about comics as being quite important.  There are plenty of sources out there to be found, if someone just spent the time to look for them.   D r e a m Focus  14:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To say this as neutrally as possible: I don't believe it is appropriate for one editor to repeatedly come to this discussion and comment on virtually every other editor's post. What term can be used for behavior to pursue one's one point repeatedly and redundantly and doggedly? I truly don't believe it is a breach of WP:CIVIL to call this behavior obsessive. Make your point, then let others make theirs. Arguing with virtually every single's editor's position who disagrees with you is badgering. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want someone to comment on what you say, then don't say it. You don't seem to understand what a discussion is.   D r e a m Focus  19:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable to reply to another editor's comment, and it can be done without badgering. My concern on Dream Focus is not when he directly replies to another editor's comment, it's when he simply adds comments. I would greatly prefer it if he kept his personal commentary localized to one section.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To respond to Dream Focus' claim that I "don't seem to understand what a discussion is": A productive discussion is not one person haranguing everyone who disagrees with him. If one's point isn't strong enough to stand on its own without constant interjection, that is telling. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say to Keep when and if sources can be found. If that is not likely to happen soon, then I think we have quite a bit of Fictional Character Biography at the main article, so it wouldn't hurt anything to simply Redirect to Green Goblin in the meantime, rather than delete or merge. BOZ (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:PLOT (and WP:INUNIVERSE). A 'fictional history' cannot help but be a "plot-only description of fictional works." Lack of significant secondary sourcing in the article seems to support this view. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article topic is clearly notable, detail is too extensive to merge into another article, and the in-universe problems are severe but not irreperable. AfD is not for solving problems that can be resolved through normal editing. NB: A fictional history need not necessarily violate WP:PLOT where it hues closely to a publication history and provides historical detail of changes in plot canon that contribute to an encyclopaedic understanding of an element of pop culture; this article doesn't do that, but it could, hence normal editing. - DustFormsWords (talk)
 * A few observations:
 * The character is notable. Some of the single issue stories or self contained arcs are notable. The whole in-story bio isn't. Not with regard to a general use encyclopedia.
 * For this character, one that essentially has a single, unbroken, 60 year story, shifting this to a publication history would still mean it belongs in the parent article, Green Goblin.
 * History with these types of articles has been that they don't get edited to fix the problem. Edits to being them in line with standing guidelines are routinely contested, reverted, and fought tooth and nail. AfD are proposed and the point of "It's a content issue. Go back and work it out in editing on the article's talk page." is pushed. When the AfD's close as "Work on fixing it", nothing happens or, worse, more plot is dumped in. At some point either the guidelines need to go - and consensus has always come back to keep them as is - or the article. Personally, that frustrated me, greatly. These become posters for why articles on elements related to pop-fiction - comics, films, television, etc - shouldn't be. That they only attract fans that don't care about Wikipedia's policies on non-free content, sourcing, and on and on. I'm a fan. I believe that there is a place within Wikipedia for articles on characters and stories from comics, among other sources. But I also care about seeing that the articles don't violate NFC policy - primarily about under cutting the copyright holders of the primary sources commercial options - or the guidelines that are in place about writing about fiction. At some point we have to either apply those, making them stick, or admit they aren't worth the pixels they're typed with. - J Greb (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly would this cut into the profits of the copyright holders? Just as reading a review about what happened in a movie or book doesn't make people not want to buy the thing, same thing with comic books.  And you are upset that these types of articles attract fans who know about the series and actually care about the article's content, instead of people who don't care at all and thus have no reason to ever find their way to them unless they just want to find something to complain about and/or destroy?  Is there non-free content you see on the article?  References have been found and are being discussed on the talk page of the article, as well to how best proceed.   D r e a m Focus  13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing about the concern about this somehow under cutting their commercial options. Marvel comics has an official website which allows and encourages users to update every fact about characters to it, including the character here.  So they aren't going to be bothered about someone doing the same here on Wikipedia, which had been doing this for years before they decided to create a wiki of their on on their site.   D r e a m Focus  13:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —−  Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Dream Focus' logic, we could describe the action and some of the dialog in every panel the Green Goblin has been in, since there's no copyright issue and since Wikipedia isn't on paper so we don't have to worry about space. I would ask Dream Focus: Is there any reason not to do that?
 * This is a core question that needs to be answered before debate can continue, because it sets the parameter of this entire discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In every single article for a movie, a book, or a television episode, do we not describe what happened? Why would it be different for comic books?  There is no problem with copyrights.  And we are only list things which are deemed notable either by being reviewed somewhere, or common sense and consensus of those who understand and actually care about the subject.  That is to say, if no review can be found for one section, then you discuss it on the talk page and form a consensus whether it belongs there or not.  There is enough mention of various historical events involving this character's long history, to justify the article though.   D r e a m Focus  16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your forthrightness in answering part of the question, saying that in your view, "There is no problem with copyrights" in "describ[ing] the action and some of the dialog in every panel."


 * I do find an OWN-erly presumption inherent in the remark "those who understand and actually care about the subject". All of us here do. To suggest otherwise is remarkably inaccurate and a false statement that does help this discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not every single person who showed up at this AFD reads comic books. Nor does everyone who happens by later on going to either.  There are always people rampaging about, taking a glance at something, and then trying to destroy it because they don't like it, think it hurts Wikipedia's cred to have articles like this, just don't like long articles and prefer only token mentions that no one finds interesting to read, or for other reasons.  I've used the comment "those who understand and actually care about the subject" many times before, it not directed at you.  And if there is a specific part of that long article that you are referring to, discuss it on the talk page please.  AFD is for determining a subject's notability, not for nitpicking about the details of the article itself.   D r e a m Focus  16:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that making pronouncements and making bad-faith accusations about those who disagree with your position as "rampaging about" and "prefer[ing] only token mentions that no one finds interesting to read" is helpful to this discussion.


 * It's incorrect to say "AFD is for determining a subject's notability, not for nitpicking about the details of the article itself." There are many reasons listed at WP:DEL, including the catch-all "content not suitable for an encyclopedia." It's important that we stay honest in any discussion. An article that contains vast amounts of what reasonable editors here are considering non-encyclopedic minutiae can be considered for many actions, including merger and deletion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a reason to edit some of it out, not destroy the entire article. Otherwise its just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.   D r e a m Focus  16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae and Dream Focus, please continue your discussion on the talkpage, or I'll move it there for you. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If its related to the article and this AFD, the discussion belongs here.  D r e a m Focus  17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And if that's the case, it's important to say that it is improper, inaccurate and dismissive for an editor to tar all opposition to his personal viewpoint as simply being "Oh, they just don't like it," which denigrates and disrespects reasonable editors' legitimate concerns. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet the above thread largely doesn't relate to this article and this AfD. For everyone's sake, please continue this thread on the appropriate talk page, not here. – sgeureka t•c 08:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The article title only allows plot-only material there by definition, hence the article will always violate WP:NOT. Third-party sources sourcing the plot does not change that, since it still doesn't show how the fictional history of this character affects the real world. The plot can fit in Green Goblin; if it doesn't, it needs to be trimmed. – sgeureka t•c 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would anything have to affect the real world? Most of the articles on Wikipedia are about things that don't affect the real world in any possible way.   D r e a m Focus  17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, WP:NOT. Reception and significance of a fictional work take place in the real world. – sgeureka t•c 08:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confess 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to Comics wiki, Marvel wiki, and/or Comixpedia, where such details would be welcome. Wikipedia, however, requires that articles about comic book characters are not simply plot summaries, and that reliable, non-primary sources are available to establish the notability of the subject.  There are a number of similar articles that may also need to be transwikied (just do a search for Fictional history of).  Snotty Wong   confabulate 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd hate to say that fictional histories are fancruft, but they are. And what are they other than plot summaries, with the arc of their plot spread out over multiple books and years? The article consists of plot summaries of individual installments, so by definition this is OR and synthesis. We allow "original" plot summaries for novels (and even video clips, I understand), but this is much more than that, since it is the meat of the article. And yes, I've looked at the "external reference"--a little article from the life section of The Gazette. Come on. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and especially per Sgeureka. This is a full-on plot-dump. More appropriate to a fansite, such as wikia.com. Jack Merridew 02:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't even have articles like this for more notable villians like Wthe Joker or Dr. Doom. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If their histories get large enough then they can do a valid content fork into their own article as well. Someone just has to write it.   D r e a m Focus  06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is, if their histories can be summerized, so can the Goblin's. There is NO reason why GG's history can't fit into the main article. Seriously, do we really need paragraph-long plot descriptions of every comic GG's been in? Is it nessecary to have a whole paragraph dedicated to his alliance with the Crime-Master? Much of the information here is trivial and useless for an encyclopedia. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Would adding in more publication information and changing the title of it eliminate some of the calls for deletion? The History of Superman and Publication history of Wonder Woman basically cover plot points, and mention notable story arcs, just like this article does.  When the Fictional history of Spider-Man was up for deletion, such things were added to it, and it survived all three of its AFDs.  Fictional history of Dick Grayson does the same thing.  So, would that solve the problem here?   D r e a m Focus  06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would distinguish the Superman, Wonder Woman & Spider-Man cases as having a substantial body of work devoted to them, whose 'publication history' (personnel, changes in style, etc) might well be a valid topic. I don't think this works for the Green Goblin as, as a villain, he would not typically have many comics devoted to him. In any case, I would expect to see substantive WP:SECONDARY sourced content analysing this publication history. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Marvel Wikia list 452 comic book issues with him in them, and its still incomplete. He has had various comics dedicated entirely to him, no ongoing series though.  And he was in charge of the government's security for a time, and in charge of the Avengers, etc. during the Dark Reign event, and even started a war that destroyed most of Asgard.  He wasn't just Spider-man's sometimes enemy.  And over a thousand results appear when I use Google book search for "Green Goblin" AND "Marvel"  some of them secondary sources that mention him for being part of various historical events in comics.   D r e a m Focus  09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble being that comic book writers and editors would typically put thought into (and later mention in sources) their views on what to do with heroes and comic book titles ("what should we do next with Spiderman" or "what should we do next with the Avengers"), not villains ("what should we do next with the Green Goblin"). Villains are typically there simply to give form to the narrative of the heroes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. There is an often mentioned bit about how Stan Lee wanted to reveal the secret identity of the Green Goblin, they really building up to it, and the other guy working on it at the time got mad and left Marvel.  Read about that and other information about the Green Goblin in "Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics, Marvel, by Les Daniels".  Also see it mentioned in one article, and plenty of Google Book results.  So there was a lot put into this character.  They recently started a new series called "Osborn" about this character, and he had his own limited series called "Green Goblin" for 13 issues, and various one shots.  The character is quite well developed, and very well established in the Marvel universe for decades now.   D r e a m Focus  11:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, that story about Stan Lee and Steve Ditko is apocryphal. Second, your post above about "he was in charge of the government's security" etc. goes on about this character as if he were a real person who really did these things. Finally, none of this has anything to do with the Wikiepedia violations &mdash; it's obfuscation, a distracting smokescreen from the real issue.


 * To follow this logic to the end, why not write book-length biographies of fictional characters here?


 * One and only one editor is arguing vociferously and continually, arguing every other editor's point. This needs to be factored in during the consensus decision weighing whether to delete or to keep.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the previous poster said about not believing they put much thought into the villains, I giving one notable example proving that they did. There is no "smokescreen" here.  You are the one going around commenting on me, instead of my arguments, which is against the rules.  And to answer your question, if there is enough valid information to fill a book-length biography, so be it.  Discussion on the talk page can determine what is important enough to mention.  And if you check the AFD statistics, I'm not the only one saying keep here.  And those that said delete, mostly said it before I added references to the article showing media response to various notable things in the Green Goblin history.  After I'm done with it, I'll ask them on their talk page if they still believe the article is without merit.  Since a considerable amount of information has been deleted from the Green Goblin article, it makes sense to have their entire notable history over in a side article like other notable characters have.   D r e a m Focus  16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So you intend to WP:CANVASS the other editors? That's really not proper. Also, I didn't say you were the only "keep," albeit one of few &mdash; I said you're the only one who feels the need to argue with every single editor who disagrees with your own personal opinion. Your single opinion is no more or less valuable than anyone else's, but you're treating it as it were.


 * No one is saying the topic is without merit. No one. That's a straw-dog argument. The issue is whether it has to be a fictography of such extremely minute details as "He left and changed into his Spider-Man costume." You say a book-length biography is appropriate. Wikipedia guidelines &mdash; and I know for a fact copyright law &mdash; says it is not


 * In any event, I'm floored by the suggestion that because you're argued against each "delete" post that that negates each of those posts! If an editor changes his or her mind, he or she can come back and say so of their own volition. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What? That isn't canvassing, nor anywhere close. Contacting people who said delete because of reliable sources and coverage by secondary sources, and asking if the ones I included are enough for them to change their mind, is certainly not canvassing. And you are the only one who keeps arguing with me directly, instead of the points I have made. Focus on the arguments, not the editor who posted them.  D r e a m Focus  21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, it's the very definition of canvassing, going around to other editors' pages and trying to convince them of something. Second, I've very much been addressing the points of your arguments, however specious I may find them. To accuse someone of attacking you personally because he's pointing out flaws in your argument or disagreeing with you is a common tactic here and certainly in the political realm: When your points are indefensible, you attack the other person rather than address his points. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CANVASS There is nothing wrong with asking editors who already voted, if the changes made in the article fixed what they considered to be a problem. And I'm not responding to the rest of your nonsense.  I think its hopeless trying to reason with people like you.  You gain absolutely nothing by destroying articles like this, and have absolutely no legitimate reason to do so.  It all comes down to people not liking something, they originally shot down and everything preserved, but then enough of them ganging up on the previously ignored guideline pages to force through their agenda, and ever sense people use that as an excuse to delete things they don't like.  And the guy running things makes more money every time more stuff gets deleted, and people driven to the wikia, so he isn't going to try to stop it, but instead encouraging it at times.   D r e a m Focus  21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors can reasonably disagree, and reasonably concede to consensus for the greater good. But I wish you could hear yourself saying that anyone who disagree with your position is "destroying articles" ... that disparate editors who have nothing to do with each other and no agenda are nonetheless "ganging up." And I honestly don't know what you mean by some "guy running things" making "more money" by deleting "Fictional history of the Green Goblin" and other articles that violate guidelines. You accuse everyone who opposes your position as having "no legitimate reason." You show no respect for anyone else's position. Our points are all illegitimate, and we're ganging up on you to further "some guy's" agenda. Please realize how all this sounds. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I should discuss the history behind this article. I created this article because the history was too large on the Green Goblin article. I mean the history was getting larger than the Fictional history of Spider-Man for crying out loud making the article huge. But now that I put a shorter fictional history on the main article I did not find as much use for it that's why I originally merged it. Hopefully this discussions will help situations on what to do with this article. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, no merging is necessary. The contents of the article came from Green Goblin, and any trivial edits made in an effort to "rescue" this thing should have been made to the main article, not here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When I say merge, I meant I redirected it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Green Goblin article went from 72k to 42k during the course of this AFD, while this article is 75k. So any merge/redirect would just be deleting most of the information.   D r e a m Focus  21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only plot summary, which is not suitable content for either article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, Rename Wikipedia to Fanopedia, Restart Wikipedia to be an online encyclopedia for the general public and edited by people who understand that there is no difference between an article on a fictional character and an article on the fictional history of a fictional character. Borock (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * you haven't addressed how the article meets Notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fanopedia doesn't have any notability criteria. Snotty Wong   communicate 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does not meet any of the requirements of notability for fiction, it's written with primary sources mainly and it's coverage in third-party sources is very poor to warrant a full article. More importantly it doesn't have real-world coverage, it's a redundant content fork written with an in-universe perspective and I believe it fills the criteria of what Wikipedia is not and reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete article is written with primary sources, which lack the independence to allow us to WP:verify notability. It's a WP:CONTENTFORK of the green goblin article with only plot summaries, which is what wikipedia is not. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:FICT clearly states that "Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. However, the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage." This article clearly violates that. It's mostly just unnecessary plot details of the Goblin's appearances in comics. Stuff that belongs on a fansite not an encyclopedia. Delete, Delete, Delete!!! 174.124.170.86 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (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.