Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate


 * 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. Only keep reasons are 1) statement of notability without any actual evidence for it (plus a very bad attempt at intimidation) 2) statement of potential, without again any evidence for this, 3) procedural keep, which I don't agree with, since most opinions in this debate have been about the article, not about the editors, and the debate was highly visible anyway. A lack of reliable sources is a perfectly normal delete reason, and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. The reference added to the artiucle at he last moment was hardly a reliable source, and more importantly did not discuss the character, only indicated who portrayed him in an overview of the cast. (Oh, and the debate has run its full five days, as it did at the time of the previous close). Fram (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sky Tate

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

No reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to justify notability thus failing WP:V Also nominating

These pages do not qualify for inclusion as a result of those issues. If any reliable sources have been found, provide links and cite them on the articles. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable characters of a notable television program, notability exists beyond the work of fiction itself. If you put anything else up for AFD with this same rationale (no sources, but you clearly know it's notable), I will seek that you be blocked Mythdon.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely in-universe plot rehash, with no evidence of external notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable outside of work, there must've been like a hundred Power Rangers by now, what makes these 2 so special? Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete, I was not able to find any reliable source on this fictional character. As such, this article is unverifiable and should be redirected to the article on the television show they come from (Power Rangers: S.P.D.).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Redirect to Power Rangers. Insufficient notability to justify separate article. --DAJF (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable trivial cruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Usually for stuff like this there is a characters page, not an article for the each character. Res2216firestar 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we are discussing a merge or redirect as the outcome, the proper article would be S.P.D. Power Rangers, not Power Rangers as DAJF suggests.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entirely plot summary without real-world development, context, analysis, or critical commentary for a non-notable fictional topic which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect: No out-of-universe information, and no sign that such information exists. --Carnildo (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this entry and any entries relating to Power Rangers. Anyone who thinks the Power Rangers show is notable needs to get a life.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * a truly noteworthy instance of IDONTLIKEIT, worthy of being used as an example on the bad arguments page.  DGG (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Should I like it? I don't like it because it's against policy due to a lack of notability. By the way, you mis-spelled "I don't like it."--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's spelling it how the redirect spells it. I'll give you the link: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as per Ryulong. Per: Wikipedia:Notability: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator did not bother to look for sources. So per WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL, "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Ikip (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the nom "did not bother to look for sources" does not mean that "reliable", "independent of subject" sources that assert the notability of the subjects outside of Power Ranger SPD magically exist somewhere. Until you find these sources, your argument contradicts itself. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I did bother to look for sources. Where did you get the idea that I didn't look for sources?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry, this user's argument is tantamount to gaming the system. It basically says "I don't think the AFD process was followed properly, therefore article must be kept", all the while ignoring that notability is the reason for deletion. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood, "If any reliable sources have been found, provide links and cite them on the articles." Sorry. Reminding editors to follow wikipedia guidelines is not gaming the system. But it was my mistake, sorry.Ikip (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So now your argument for inclusion is; article should be improved not deleted, yes? Well the reason for deletion was that these subjects are not notable, "improving" the articles on these two fictional characters will not make them anymore notable. Ryan 4314   (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True. If an article is not about a notable subject, all attempts to improve the article will not make the subject any more notable, so basically only real-life will make things more notable. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, for (ahem) procedural reasons. Now I don't know the cause of this, but somehow this deletion discussion has become part of a dispute between two users, & which I suspect has unfairly influenced the outcome. At this point I feel the best thing to do would be to close this discussion as No consensus, wait two weeks or a month to make sure tempers have cooled, then list this article again. Its presence won't hurt Wikipedia (if you don't like an article, you don't have read it & its existence is not preventing anyone from creating an article you might want to read), & perhaps someone who cares about the article will take the opportunity to provide the material needed to keep it. (As a note, I have to say that I know nothing about the Power Rangers, have never watched an episode, nor do I ever care to. I just want useful information kept in Wikipedia.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included on the Power Rangers talk page.Ikip (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If you continue to threaten well-meaning editors who wish to prune the encyclopedia of non-notable silliness, I will seek that you be mocked, Ryulong. And don't think I won't do it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you watching him right now?. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 01:50, 3 February 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.