Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains (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 keep. While there are ideas here for how this and related content should be organized and cleaned up (which can continue on the article talk pages), there isn't a consensus to delete here. Michig (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers villains
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was discussed at DRV. The consensus is that the previous deletion is valid but that this should be relisted. As such, non-consensus here should revert to the status quo - which is no article. As the DRV closer this is a procedural nomination and I am neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article is simply a list of characters, and a minimal list at that. Meets WP:LISTPURP (directing users to sublists) and serves as a spun-off list from the parent article of Power Rangers. Arguments at the original AFD citing WP:Fancruft (an essay which tells users not to dismiss content but to suggest changes), that it was a subjective categorization (a list of fictional antagonists cannot be subjective), that the subject was not notable (characters from a 20-year-long television and media franchise), or the dismissive attitude of the page's original author from 8 years ago may have formed a consensus, but they were all poor and irrelevant to the page's subject matter.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - lists are a useful method of organising content, when done intelligently. Here we have numerous articles on notable Power Ranger Villains who are notable for being Power Ranger Villians - this is the most sensible organisational scheme. Wily D  10:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. — Ed! (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to a large "list of lists of PR characters". There's no need to list out the villains specifically when they are listed in separate articles. I can understand with a zillion different series and cast of characters varying in each, that there are going to be lists specific for each iteration, but links to such lists should be organized on a single page "List of list of Power Ranger characters" as a simple navigation list. This, as presently written, is not, and nor is there a need to call out the villains separately from the overall list of characters. One navigation list to rule them all, effectively. --M ASEM  (t) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the central list, so would you suggest that the lists of names be deleted and simply modified into a list of links to the individual articles or something else?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a central list for the villains, but it acts like something between a nav list and an information list. My suggestion is you need "List of lists of Power Rangers characters", from which will be a purely nav list - listing each series, and linking to each list of Ranges, list of Villains, and other character lists. This current list, and I think "List of Power Ranger heroes" (or whatever it is called) would be duplicate of this new navlist. --M ASEM  (t) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the creation of a central list of character lists (and also turning the separate lists of protagonists and antagonists into singular articles) would be best (also you're thinking of List of Power Rangers).— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Something like that. In this list of lists, you can section by show iteration to include the list to the Rangers, villains, and any other lists. If (based on comments below) you think its useful to list the major Rangers and villains (as done in this list and the Rangers list), where there are only 5-7 names each, you can keep that short summary for those lists as well, maybe making this list-of-lists a table. --M ASEM  (t) 16:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of Power Rangers characters per Masem. Powergate92   Talk  19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete normally I'm a big fan of character lists, since they're often a good way to organise information and discourage extremely non-notable articles, but this one isn't good. The few that might even somewhat be considered notable have their own articles (like Rita Repulsa) and the seasons have surprisngly well-written, if a little overstuffed, text articles (see Villains in Power Rangers Operation Overdrive for an example)...making this kind of pointless. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the removal of the lists of names and simply reformatting this article into a list of lists be better then? This page has some form of utility in its minimal nature in my opinion.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * that would be an improvement on the status quo, but there's already Template:Power Rangers villains, a really handy template that links to them all already. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories, lists, and navigation templates.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It meets WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. To begin with, contested article with no sources = fails WP:V = mandatory deletion. Also WP:LISTPURP is not met, because there are very few linked (i.e., navigable) elements. The few that there are could just as well be linked to from the parent article. Moreover, lists must additionally meet WP:LISTN, and given the article's lack of sources, the notability of the topic of "Power Rangers villains" is not established. Finally, per WP:NOT, articles must not consist only of plot summary (and a list of fictional characters from a work is plot summary, or functionally the same thing, i.e., in-universe content.) In short, there's no way that this can be kept in the light of applicable policies and guidelines.  Sandstein   00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is a list of just the names plot summary? And why are sources necessary for such a list? And there certainly are sources that explain why the antagonists are important:, , , , , , , , (at least from the angle that fantasy violence is problematic in the late 90s). Arguments like these are what plagued the first AFD.— Ryulong  ( 琉竜 ) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These seem to be passing mentions of some villains, or superficial descriptions of individual ones. That does not establish that the ensemble of these villains, as a group or concept, is notable. It may however establish notability for certain individual ones.  Sandstein   22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The assertion that it fails WP:V appears to be straightforwardly false. What piece of information in the list is unverifiable? Wily D  09:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say false. I said unverifiable. That is, because there are no sources, the reader is not able to verify that the list's assertions are true. For instance, the assertion that these are all villains. Or that the list's categorization scheme is correct.  Sandstein   22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It could perhaps be verified by the source material itself which last I checked didn't need sourcing really.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you said false. I said your claim that the list fails WP:V was obviously false, something your follow-up statement has confirmed.  It at least mostly meets WP:V; I see no reason to think there's any bit that fails WP:V; but I may have overlooked something. Wily D  06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unverifiable" means "cites no sources". That's said clearly in the nutshell summary of WP:V: "Readers must be able to verify content. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This artice cites no sources, hence it is entirely unverifiable. - The source material is a primary source and per WP:PSTS is not suitable for sourcing assertions that normally require interpretation, such as the assertion that these characters are villains. Even if deemed permissible, that does not solve the WP:LISTN problem.   Sandstein   22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it an assertion to state that these characters are the antagonists? What sort of interpretation is necessary that would possibly be incorrect? Would the fact that the toy lines consistently refer to them as the "Evil Space Aliens" be sufficient? Because really you're stretching what is and is not WP:OR with that statement of yours. And regarding notability, there are the 9 academic papers and other publications I keep posting around these debates.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. "Unverifiable" means "Unable to be verified".  What piece of information have you been unable to verify, after attempting to do so?  For instance, suppose I want to verify that "Marah & Kapri" are villains in "Power Rangers Ninja Storm villains" (as listed in the list).  I simply pick up the July 2003 issue of Black Belt, leaf ahead to page 63, and successfully verify that information.  No fuss, no muss.  Trying reading the policy before asserting what it says. Wily D  10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wily is correct. I've had this confirmed at WP:V multiple times. Warden (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are eight villains on the list which are blue linked to their own articles. These various shows are all quite notable.  Note there is also an AFD for a similar article called Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.   D r e a m Focus  10:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay Jay What did I do? 01:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment (edge on keep) from the previous nom of this, I believe that there is reasonable cause to have a high level "list of lists" article for the Power Rangers series that points to all the individual iterations' list of characters (Rangers and Villains). I don't think one needs a completely separate list for Rangers and a separate one for Villains - a single one ordered by series would do this nicely, so I think there's major cleanup here (hence why I edge on keep here) and don't think deletion is appropriate, but strongly urge those working on these lists to consider this cleanup. --M ASEM  (t) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, what's being worked on is taking the individual lists of Rangers and lists of villains and merging them into singular character lists, as per List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters. It is highly likely that this page will not be necessary in the near future, but it'll be used to coordinate the production of a central list, in also eliminating List of Power Rangers and the other character lists that are floating around.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is fine - from that you can also (completely fairly) have a list of those lists. In that regard, this page could redirect to that list of lists. (eg retaining the contribution history)  --M ASEM  (t) 15:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * don't delete There may be a need for cleanup (almost certainly) or merging (less sure), but there is no need for deletion. And frankly I'm not seeing any reasonable arguments for deletion.  WP:PLOT and WP:V both have been mentioned, but refuted nicely in my opinion. We certainly can use primary sources to verify non-controversial facts and WP:PLOT doesn't just wipe out all "list of character" articles on its own. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2013 (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.