| Revision as of 21:13, 8 December 2019 editRtkat3 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers144,754 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:39, 8 December 2019 edit undoDarkknight2149 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,414 edits →Goblin (Marvel Comics): This is ridiculous. TTN needs to stop spamming deletion nominations and express his concern with the WikiProject in a larger discussion. This is beginning to feel borderline WP:POINTy.Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::::::: 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 ]. 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. ''']]]''' 22:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC) | ::::::: 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 ]. 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. ''']]]''' 22:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::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. ] (]) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) | ::::::::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. ] (]) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::: {{re|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 <s>strike</s>, 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 discussions where groups of users have complained about the WikiProject and claimed that there is some sort of ] / ] at ], and the consensus has been against them. These deletion spammings are just a way for you to bypass any discussion and are borderline ]y. | |||
| ::::::::: 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: , , , , , , , . | |||
| ::::::::: 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 ]. ''']]]''' 22:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| * '''keep''': These are related characters and characters like the Grey Goblin are merged here. Getting real tired of these frequent mass deletions. ]<sup>''']'''</sup> 02:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) | * '''keep''': These are related characters and characters like the Grey Goblin are merged here. Getting real tired of these frequent mass deletions. ]<sup>''']'''</sup> 02:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:39, 8 December 2019
Goblin (Marvel Comics)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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: , , , , , , , .
- 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. DarkKnight2149 22:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- @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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- keep: These are related characters and characters like the Grey Goblin are merged here. Getting real tired of these frequent mass deletions. Jhenderson 02:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies in its present form. All major characters have their own articles, the minor ones shouldn't even be mentioned, so this is redundant. It just encourages WP:OR by grouping characters with similar "races". – sgeureka 10:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies per Sgeureka. Like they said, the major characters, who have their own articles, are already present on that list. The minor ones and unrelated ones, which don't appear to have much in the way of non-primary coverage, should not be included. When you prune out all of the non-related, minor/barely related, and redundant entries, there really is not much here that would justify this being a standalone article rather than the notable entries being included in the main List of Spider-Man enemies as a navigational tool, which they already are. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Let this page stay. @Darkknight2149: and @Jhenderson777: are right about their claim with it as well as it being a set index for the other Goblin characters. As for the species, they were added to the page since we have to put them somewhere on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)