Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin (Marvel Comics)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Goblin (Marvel Comics) (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)

Collection of several unrelated topics with the same name. Notability for the whole of any of them is not established. TTN (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not even remotely unrelated. The "Goblin" family is a notable lineage of supervillains in the Marvel Universe that are connected to one another. There have even recent storylines (such as "Goblin Nation") where the premise is Norman Osborn or some iteration of the Hobgoblin leading an army of all the different goblins. Virtually all of them are also tied to the Osborn bloodline or the Goblin formula in some way. Given that many of these characters are also notable enough to have articles of their own, there is no basis for a deletion. The deletion rationale is presumptuous and misinformed. DarkKnight2149 22:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's the Goblin-themed characters, related characters through the "Goblin Formula", and sets of actual goblins. Three different headers of unrelated characters. None of them establish notability. Even if you reduce this to the Goblin-themed characters, they do not currently establish notability as a group. TTN (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong. I just scrolled through the entire list, and literally every single character on there is connected to Norman Osborn or the Goblin formula. And the subject matter is definitely notable enough to maintain the hub page. Many of the characters even have articles of their own. Your rationale is objectively false. DarkKnight2149 22:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be pedantic, yes the "Goblin Formula" itself is related to the Goblin-themed, but the characters are not directly related to the themed characters. You're also ignoring "Goblins (species)." But at the end of the day, this is a pointless discussion because this article still fails WP:GNG. You're trying to frame this as some ignorant assault on comics, but GNG is all that matters. TTN (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except, again, what you are claiming is incorrect. All of the characters are connected to one another and tie back to Norman Osborn in some way. The fact that you claim otherwise just demonstrates your lack of awareness for the page you want deleted. This is a hubpage for the lineage of supervillains known as the Goblins. That being said, I'm not sure who added Goblin (species), but that section should be removed for being off-topic with the rest of the article. However, that section alone doesn't justify going nuclear and deleting the whole page. I'm not being "pedantic", you are just wrong. DarkKnight2149 22:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are either sources or no sources. That's the only remaining relevant topic of discussion. If there are real world sources discussing the group as a whole, it should be retained. If there are no sources discussing the group, it should be removed. TTN (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except this topic (and the characters in it) has received third party coverage, the article is primarily a hubpage and many of the characters in it have pages of their own, and the Goblin lineage is very prominent in Marvel Comics and the subject is notable to the topic of WP:COMICS. There is definitely a basis for deleting the Goblin (species) section, but no basis for deleting the entire article. At this point, I would advise you to open a larger discussion expressing your concerns against the WikiProject before making anymore nominations. This discussion alone is making me genuinely concerned about the validity of the mass deletion nominations. DarkKnight2149 22:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, from the group to the character or the character to the group. For this article to remain standing, the group itself needs to establish notability. If there are sources, provide enough to show without a shadow of a doubt it's notable. This is why I'm saying you're being pedantic. You're harping on the most minor detail of this and acting like it at all matters in the discussion. There are not enough people related to the project who seem to care about the obvious issue with these hundreds upon hundreds of articles that fail GNG, so I don't think they can help unless they want to enact an actual mass cleanup project to determine notable vs non-notable topics. There are hundreds of notable characters and topics, but there are also many hundreds more that aren't notable. TTN (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: First of all, you have been on this site long enough to know what hub pages and disambiguation pages are. Don't play dumb. And no one is being pedantic when you yourself cited "a collection of unrelated topics" as a primary reason for why this article should be deleted (which you have yet to strike, despite having been thoroughly proven wrong). The only valid argument you have presented is a section. It's pretty obvious that all you are doing is skimming through articles that you have no familiarity with and boldly marking them for deletion. At this point, multiple users have expressed their exasperation with these haphazard deletion discussions. If you have a problem with the WikiProject, then the onus is on you to open a larger discussion and express your concerns. In fact, there actually have been discussions where groups of users have complained about the WikiProject and claimed that there is some sort of WP:CABAL / ownership conspiracy at WP:COMICS, and the consensus has been against them. These deletion spammings are just a way for you to bypass any discussion and are borderline WP:POINTy.
As for notability, the group as a whole is very prevalent in comic books and the page itself is a hubpage that branches off into other articles. Try pulling this with other hub pages and disambiguation pages, and see how that works out for you. You want sources? Here are some right here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Just because an article is Start-Class or the sources haven't been cited yet doesn't mean they don't exist. You need to stop scrolling to the "References" section of articles and indiscriminately tagging them for deletion. Raise your concerns at WT:COMICS or another appropriate venue. DarkKnight2149 22:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is with you people harping on some nonsensical argument? The Goblins, "random people who drank the serum", and Goblins (creatures) are three separate topics. I don't care that the serum drinkers are tangentially related. They are not goblins. That is my point of saying that it's multiple topics on one page. But at the end of the day, that's still irrelevant. If you want to turn this into an actual dab page with just the Goblin names, I'll withdraw this right now, but hub pages are not dab pages. They do not get to exist just because, especially when used to collect a bunch of non-notable topics. Collections of useless sources do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "You people?" BAHAHAHA... ha ha... *sigh* Hilarious! -2pou (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it has been repeatedly explained to you that they are not "random" or "tangentially related", the serum is what creates the Goblins to begin with. The entire article is the exact same topic except "Goblin (species)" (which doesn't belong). You continue to push a narrative after it has been repeatedly explained to you why you are wrong. The article is one topic, with a single disembodied section that Rtkat3 added much later about the species. That "Characters exposed to the Goblin Formula" section lists a character who tied and failed to turn himself into a goblin (the same supervillain group that this article is about), a test subject for the man who became Hobgoblin, someone who briefly became a goblin, and an off-shoot to the Green Goblin (Norman Osborn). It is on-topic with the rest of the article. The only thing that isn't is "Goblin (species)". 23:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic bickering. DarkKnight2149 23:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You mean constantly repeated by you because you really want to focus on something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. TTN (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm through with this bickering. It's transparent that you were caught with your pants down and now you are trying to dance around the discussion instead of admitting your mistake. There is no basis for a deletion, nor is the rationale accurate. DarkKnight2149 23:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could have simply let go of it five posts ago when I explained my rationale, but you stubbornly refuse to see my point of view. There are still the notability concerns, which your link dump does noting to assuage. TTN (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you you refuse to get the point. I have explained the issues with your erroneous "point of view" multiple times now and you continue to repeat it as if nothing happened. We can only dance in circles for so long. DarkKnight2149 23:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just refuse to let go of a trivial talking point that has nothing at all to do with the discussion to continue to acting like I'm somehow invading your space. This is fairly typical behavior of someone getting overly defensive of a topic they think they own. TTN (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That has already been addressed and this is exactly what I am talking about. It isn't trivial when your (objectively false) reason for deletion literally reads Collection of several unrelated topics with the same name. Notability for the whole of any of them is not established and you continue to persist with the point. Until there is something to legitimately discuss, I'm done here. DarkKnight2149 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. And as mentioned, those sources do not in any way establish notability for the grouping. Most of those simply confirm the existence of the topic without providing actual significant coverage. TTN (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: There is no original research here. In fact, I have already listed off several different sources discussing the Goblins in this discussion alone. If you are supporting a deletion, at least do it for a legitimate reason. DarkKnight2149 00:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JIP: Again, objectively not the case. DarkKnight2149 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Banned sockpuppet talk and old history. – sgeureka t•c 14:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • OK, good luck. In all this, you have yet to answer my repeated question as to what supposed consensus I'm breaking. That's the main point where your report is going to fail. TTN (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone into detail numerous times. You refuse to hear it. Now other users are looking into your behaviour and it turns out that you have been sanctioned in the past for doing exactly what you are doing now. We're done dancing in circles. DarkKnight2149 23:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, I was sanctioned for the mass redirection of episode articles, like probably 500 a day on a good day. That is something I have stopped. My AfDs have never been an issue after that, even when I was peaking at ten to fifteen a day. TTN (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You were banned for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. You have graduated from spamming redirects to spamming deletion nominations, which seems to be the only thing you do on Wikipedia these days. With these WP:COMICS articles, all you are doing is finding as many start-class articles as you can, quickly scrolling down to the References section, and then automatically tagging them for deletion without looking into whether sources exist or if there is a way to improve the articles. I'm not yet sure I agree with 199.123.13.2, but I have to ask - Are you even here to contribute to an encyclopedia? DarkKnight2149 00:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the ultimate result of the mass redirects, but if you look at my AfD history, I made many, many hundreds of AfDs (over 1000 maybe?) after that. That is my main and primary interest, and it has been my general style of editing any time I've been active the last decade. I have not a single block since 2008 despite that. I'd honestly have no idea where to look, but I'm quite sure someone complained about it on ANI but it was dismissed because I'm using official channels seeking out consensus. If you want to undo every single prod I make, feel free. That's within your right. I just do it to save time at AfD. As for BEFORE, you have no idea what I do or don't do. That's always a pointless criticism. My goal is the reduction of non-notable fiction to spur on the creation of notable fiction due to the inherent stagnation that comes with dozens or hundreds of plot articles. The only people who seem to ever really disagree with that end goal (though there have been like minded people who do disagree with my editing style) are extreme inclusionists like the many times banned User:A Nobody (the above IP) and people angry that their space is being invaded. TTN (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with A Nobody by memory, but do you have any evidence that the two are one in the same? DarkKnight2149 00:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive - Extremely obsessed inclusionist (beyond the point of reason, to the point where pretty much literally nothing should ever be deleted) who has kept up the same pattern of sockpuppeting and anonymous posting on AfDs for years. Their style of targeting pretty much any AfD with grandstanding and often nonsensical rebuttals is extremely familiar to anyone who knows it, which you can see from many years of those reports. They're particularly obsessed with me, coinciding with my return, so they've been reported and blocked several times recently. TTN (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for informing me. DarkKnight2149 00:40, 12 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goblin_(Marvel_Comics)&oldid=930798094"