Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes


 * 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   keep. Wizardman 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

List completely lacks any reliable sources or comprehension, it is purely fan junk. The list has no context and to the casual wikipedian who is unfamiliar with the subject matter it is terrible given that the article is completely in the Power Rangers universe and not our own. Utterly unencyclopedic. If we must have such lists can we please keep it in one "article"? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Good? Hardly. I gather you are a young user who likes reading about comics and fictional characters. Fair enough if thats your thing but wikipedia is still an encyclopedia not an in universe list of fiction. Listcruft was written by a college professor who laid down the guidleines to fiction huh? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list does have context; it tells you what it's about at the very top of the page. The list is not in-universe; it's a list of episodes with a few synopses. It is not fan junk; it's a list. I suggest you read WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:SAL for guidelines on when breaking lists out of a main article is appropriate. A little more sourcing, and it's good. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can make any assumptions you want about me (here's a hint, if the age you give on your userpage is accurate, I'm older than you, boy) but if you're going to close your mind to WP:WAF and WP:LISTCRUFT don't get angry when the flaws in your arguments are pointed out. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK then then you are an old man. Answer my question. Do you or do you not enjoy reading about fictional characters? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it has any bearing on the discussion, but yes I do, if it's a show or movie or novel I'm interested in. Of course, I also enjoy articles on Astronomy, History, and Scotland, and I appreciate being able to find all of these in one place, but if you wish to focus on the first point, go right ahead. It doesn't change that the list is a valid topic. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats exactly what my concern is. However offtrack people's conception of an encyclopedia is in relation to traditional conservative views content however fan cruft still has to be verifiable and contain reliable sources and also contain non in-unvierse information such as the making and release of episodes etc. Some series like The SImpsons etc and actually contain the balance of information which is required for fiction by not only listing plot or episodes but containing actual "real" life information on it. List cruft is not exempt from the guidelines and it is not so much the idea of having lists as it is that they don't meet guidelines in this way.. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Episode lists are perfectly valid spin-out articles. For that matter, separate articles for every indivdual episode are allowed on Wikipedia.  And article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — Blue  Squadron  Raven  14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — Blue  Squadron  Raven  14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  — Blue  Squadron  Raven  14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Accepted spin out article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the opinion of contributers here about this article being wholly unreferenced to any reliable sources? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of referencing is a definite concern here. It is not one that is insurmountable, I don't think, so editing, rather than deletion, is the answer. Again, unfortunately, I'm not the one to talk to about it, as I'm not a fan, or I'd do it myself. I will, however, list it at the appropriate wikiproject. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but wikipedia isn't a TV guide. I can't see how they are considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper but I still just think we should be covering proper encyclopedic topics, an overview of the series is surely enough?. Just imagine turning the pages of a credible encyclopedia like Britannica or somebody and seeing a list of episodes of the Mighty Morphin Power rangers it really makes us look like a joke. It points to the work of children it really does whether 50 year old men like such series or not. How wikipedia ever hopes to gain any respect and credibility if content like this exists I have no idea. What concerns me is if people consider this sort of content encyclopedic then it opens up a huge area for fan crufters to pollute this site with further unreferenced child-like plots in universe with little relation to the real world. The fictional content on here is already huge but it is just going to get worse and worse as the criteria for notability just keeps getting lower and lower. So the series was a hit with children, why does this mean a list of episodes for a every series every released is appropriate? If the lists were done properly like List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes I might not think so harshly about them. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The MMPR was a notable TV series, ,  . It is preferable to have a list of episodes for a notable TV series than to have separate articles for each episode, when the individual episodes lack independent and reliable sources to show they are notable. Collectively, the episodes of a notable series can reasonably be considered notable. The names of the individual episodes are referenced to a firm which sells DVDs of the series. The airdates are unreferenced, but likely referenceable via TV Guide, as are the gist of the plots. The extended plot summaries could be pared down to what is referenceable to the TVdisc source or TV Guide. They likely are the writings of someone who has watched the disc. Does our guideline for writing about fiction require that we only cite what a secondary source says about a fictional work, or are editors allowed to summarize what happens, that is, a plain summary of events, without conjecture and interpretation? Deletion is not a substitute for editing, in any event. (Note: I have never watched the program, and am certainly not a fan).  Edison (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, standard practice. ViperSnake151 Talk  19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you make thousands of stub article about things like every museum in Greece, whether it was a major city institution ofr a curio shop or private collection which found its way onto a government list? How are your each of your stubs better than a list like this, which would make the main article about a TV series too long? Without its episodes, how would a TV series be notable? Edison (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, we've established that some lists of this type are acceptable. Good. Then all that's standing in the way of this one is cleanup, sourcing, and some pretty colours for each season. That's a problem solved by editing, not deletion. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  21:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Really? Delete it when it's just a flat out list with barely any summaries (except for the few episodes that had articles and were subsequently merged into this list as a whole)?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and encourage editors be proactive in addressing any perceived flaws. AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's an episode list of a popular TV series. Iowateen (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  I agree with BlueSquadronRaven on what is necessary here. Articles like this are the way to handle episodes, combining plot and external factors. The plot sections that have been written need improvement, and the others need writing. Fore externals, I'd like to see exact timings, list of characters, particular artists and others responsible, and ny published reviews or commentary.  I have zero interest in the subject, but then any one of us can be expected to have zero interests in quite a lot of subjects in an encyclopedia. Nobody is forced to read all the articles.  DGG (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Episode list are fine, for any popular series. And of course its in universe, since its summaries of the episodes!  How else would it be?   D r e a m Focus  19:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - hideous-looking and requires plot-cruft trimming, but entirely appropriate. An instance where clean-up is more likely and preferable than starting over. --EEMIV (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- nomination seems to be basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.