Deletion of Fictional history of Green Goblin

Comment: 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_forks|redundant content fork written with an -U|in-universe perspective and I believe it fills the criteria of #FANSITE|what Wikipedia is not and #REASON|reasons for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT||WP:CFORK||WP:IN||WP:NOT||WP:DEL)

Comment: The article title only allows plot-only material there by definition, hence the article will always violate #PLOT. 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#Fictional character biography; if it doesn't, it needs to be trimmed. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I agree entirely with Kww. There is no conceivable way this article can satisfy  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: per  (and ). 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:INUNIVERSE)