Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of the 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 redirect to Green Goblin. There is consensus that this article should not be kept, but no consensus about whether to merge it or where to. Redirection is a compromise that allows the editorial process to figure out whether anything should be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of the Green Goblin

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

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

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main Green Goblin article that covers the same subject matter, while failing the WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT standard for having its own separate reception and real-world context. When the main article gets too long that is not an excuse to spin-out sections that don't have their own notability. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very much belongs on FANDOM and violates WP:GNG/WP:INDISCRIMINATE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Goblin. Article was created in May of 2008‎. Four of the sections link to main articles over what is listed. Putting a redirect lets people access the history and if anything can be merged elsewhere it can later be done so. Dream Focus 03:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Did you actually check to see if the topic was notable or is this another "hop the bandwagon" nomination? So far, you haven't had a good track record in citing policy correctly in your rationales. Dark knight 2149 06:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK. The sources don't cover this as a separate topic from the main article and this doesn't meet the WP:GNG for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced content to Green Goblin. No need for a redirect, this is a term that is unlikely to be searched otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The topic is an unneeded context fork that should be summarized in the main article rather than endlessly expanded. This content is pointless to merge due to it being easier to just write new content than try to trim down existing plot content. TTN (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Norman Osborn per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough worth merging from independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A summary of some notable versions of the character, that actually are covered in reliable, secondary sources, could potentially be added to the main Green Goblin article. However, as none of the information present here is taken from reliable sources, this article does not need to be preserved or merged to do so. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge any alternate information to Norman Osborn per @BOZ: and send any other version not talking about an alternate version of Norman Osborn to the Green Goblin page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (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.