Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil

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 delete. Ryulong is right that specific guidelines for television series/show notability have not yet been fully discerned. That means that the fallback is WP:N, and the consensus is that the sources are absent. WIll happily userfy for an eventual return to mainspace when the sources are found Fritzpoll (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green with Evil

Information does not have external coverage present in verifiable reliable sources, and thus does not have the possibility of justifying independent notability. The sources that have been found include fansites, video websites, forum postings, etc. —Mythdon (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable as arguably what started the whole Power Rangers craze. Remember: just because you can't find/don't look for verifiable reliable sources doesn't mean they don't exist. JPG-GR (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How am I supposed to know that this is "what started...craze"? Without reliable sources, I can't have a good reason to believe it; and saying "Don't delete because there might be sources" is akin to using a crystal ball. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable episode(s) of a notable television series. Right now the content is solely about the plot, but that can be fixed given time and sources exist out there somewhere. The nominator just has his own ideals as to what can and cannot be used as a reliable source which he does not give others the chance to investigate (if he actually does look for them). I don't see how WP:BALL has anything to do with this deletion, because this is about something that has already happened.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, this content is found in a magazine and focuses nearly entirely on this one episode arc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is that source going to cut it? —Mythdon (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's something that appears in a neutral third party publication. That's a reliable source if I ever saw one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is that arguing to keep simply based on the idea that sources might exist (as suggested by JPG-GR) is crystalballery, because it presumes that sources will appear even though we have no proof that they exist — it has nothing to do with the merits of proven sources. That being said, I have yet to see a single strong source; the blog entry that you provided isn't a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not "crystalballery" to say that there might be sources (they won't appear, they're out there somewhere that we are looking). Mythdon didn't bother to look, and no one bothered to look until Mythdon decided to put this article up for AFD. I found that source. It's not very substantiative, but it shows that someone had the idea to discuss the particular episode critically. And no one has come up with any standard as to what episodes are notable and what episodes are not notable. Two arbitration cases couldn't decide that and neither could the community as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "I found that source. It's not very substantiative, but it shows that someone had the idea to discuss the particular episode critically. " - I am sorry, but that source is not direct. Indirect sources are irrelevant to the direct content of an article. —Mythdon (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The source is very clearly direct. It discusses the subject of this article, although after a minor story about how he found the T-shirt.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not arguing that "sources may appear" - I'm arguing that Mythdon has yet to show any proof that he has attempted to find sources for any of the Power Rangers articles he is targeting for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for misunderstanding you, JPG-GR. As far as the "found in a magazine" source — this is from Wordpress, a blog. How is it possibly reliable? Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The Wordpress blog states that it was also published in said magazine, as the blog belongs to the magazine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims of importance need references and they just aren't there - if the claims were true, they would be. This looks like an essay and original research. The excessive plot summary which follows is in contradiction of "a plot summary may be appropriate ... but should never become the dominant aspect of an article". I42 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did searches through multiple archival databases but unfortunately was unable to find discussion in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out, following the relisting, that this is a children's television episode arc/miniseries and would not necessarily appear in some sort of critical text. Notability of television episodes has not been fully discerned on the English Wikipedia, and while it is definitely just an episode guide now, the content can be fixed easily.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 10 April 2009 (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.