Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Once a Ranger (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Participants seem strongly divided over whether this episode has received sufficient coverage to demonstrate its notability independent of the series as a whole. It really seems that the notability of this is somewhere on the borderline, and reasonable editors do differ over which side it falls on, particularly in the context of "Wikipedia is not a TV guide". As per normal practice we default to keeping the content - I would emphasise that I find DGG's comments about a well-executed merge to be cogent and are well worth considering here, but there's no consensus to enforce such a merge in this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 13:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Ranger

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

There are no reliable sources to assert notability WP:GNG and fails on the grounds WP:SOURCES the onus is on the author to prove what they are saying is true WP:PROVEIT. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as nominator hasn't given a valid argument for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article are all third party. One is to a Japanese publication (the name of which has not been preserved through the history) and the others are to TV Guide. In addition, it is notable in that it is the fifteenth anniversary episode.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple third-party sources. jgp T C 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory Dwanyewest (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to keep making comments to add onto reasons why you want the page to be deleted, add it to your initial summary instead of as new comments. And please try to keep your signature on the same line as your comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Very important episode in history of Power Rangers, with multiple sources, and is noteworthy Rick lay95 (talk)rick_lay95
I don't think the links used on this article count as good evidence to assert notability. It fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that already. And none of the mentions are trivial and WP:OR is not an issue on this page; everything is either directly from the episodes' airing or a translation of the Japanese text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is what passes for sourcing these days? Two one-line passing mentions in a TV-guide and a photograph of a sticker, all of which "source" just one paragraph in this gigantic quagmire of cruft? Not a chance. Reyk _YO! 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a photograph of a book that I have found the title for. It is being used as a supplement to the mention of the subject in a book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, which is the default once a WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument shows up in any discussion. Otherwise following WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, no reason has been presented nor exists as to why even at worst we would not redirect with edit history intact. Ideally, the article would be improved further, but we are here to aid our readership and it is clear that some of our readers may indeed come here typing this phrase as a search term and as such they should at least be taken to a list of episodes or something. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources provided are weak and do not establish independent notability of the episode itself. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive episodes. As a plot only description that does not discuss the reception and significance of the episode it violates what Wikipedia is not. The article contains 3 "sources": two of which are to a one sentence plot summary at TV Guide, and the last is to a book written in Japanese that appears to have been published before this episode even aired, so I find it hard to believe that it really has anything to say about this episode. All in all the sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability guidelines, nor can I find the significant coverage needed to establish this episode as notable enough to deserve its own article. Sarilox (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book discusses certain aspects about the episode by saying that a specific character will appear (the text describes that the antagonist for this anniversary episode is the offspring of two previous major antagonists). Just because it happens to have been published before the episode aired does not mean anything. The Japanese media that covers this and similar television programs will often publish content before it makes it onto the airwaves. The fact is this episode is the fifteenth anniversary special. That makes it notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is determined via the GNG not by primary sources. A book being published before an episode airs is relevant. Assuming that you're right and the book does mention Thrax's parentage from two previous antagonists, based on the scan of the book that was in the article, I don't see much discussion there that would go beyond that fact. It just doesn't look like significant coverage, not of the character, nor of the episode which is what this whole discussion is about. And based on your comments below and on my talk page, I don't see anyone here suggesting that an article about an episode can't have a plot summary. What an episode article can't have is only a plot summary as that violates what Wikipedia is not. I see that you've added 3 more sources to the article — it's nice to see that you're actually trying to find sources and working on the article rather than !voting keep, saying it's notable, and moving on — however those 3 sources are all fan sites. Even if the one source with the ratings could be traced to a reliable source, it's just ratings, it's equivalent to a trivial mention rather than being any kind of detailed discussion. I don't see a problem with including ratings in articles which already have their notability established, but in and of themselves they do not establish the notability of an episode. Sarilox (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Reyk and Sarilox. Powergate92Talk 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this thrown out a lot in this AFD and others but other than plot summary, what are articles on individual episodes supposed to have? It seems to be against the purpose of having an article on an individual episode if it has no plot summary but content concerning everything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO to justify a separate article, the episode has to be noteworthy itself for some reason, apart from the show it comes from, and have some sort of citation to a reliable source to show that. e.g. the finale of Seinfeld, Dallas' "Who Shot JR?", The X-Files penned by William Gibson, etc... Tarc (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't several of its statements concerning that it is the 15th anniversary episode not suffice for that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge--properly The two should be equivalent in terms of content. At present , keep is a better option because it is the only way to keep the material from gradually disappearing into the one sentence summaries in a merged article --and those are the ones that really violate NOT TV GUIDE. As for WP:V, the plot can be sourced by the work itself--in fact it usually should be, because its both the logical source and the most accurate. There is no general agreement that secondary sources or anything beyond plot are needed for an article which describes part of a complex work. -- WP:NOT PLOT only has agreement to the extent it refers to the work as a whole. But in any case that is not relevant here, for there is substantial non-plot content. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fifteenth anniversary of a notable show, which had some of the original Power Rangers back again, fighting two of the original villains, and was the highest rated show for children in the target age group. Sounds notable to me. Dream Focus 05:17, 26 February 2010 (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.