Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Home Media releases

User talk discussion
I really don't see that a "List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Home Media releases" is really suitable for an article all to itself, particularly when the sources you are using are just Amazon.com (et al) purchase listings. Wikipedia isn't a buying guide for this kind of thing, so I've redirected it for the time being. This page seems to fall into the WP:NOTIINFO or WP:NOTGUIDE headers.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not redirect as your reasoning is invalid. Please see List of Hannah Montana DVDs if you need reassurance as it uses Amazon.com a lot too. Thanks! Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Also see List of Family Guy DVDs. Thanks! Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an excuse.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor is yours, you could have brought it up on the talk page instead of redirecting and had a consensus instead. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please unnominate the page for deletion as I pointed out: "I just started the page today and this seems to me to be no good faith or anything. As there are other pages in existence that list home media releases and uses Amazon.com as a source (Eg. List of Hannah Montana DVDs and List of Family Guy DVDs) so I do not see any reason why this should not be allowed. It seems to me that Ryūlóng is acting like he owns Wikipedia as he just went and decided on himself that the page should be redirected reverted my edits and that to me is not WP:Good Faith and personally he should have brought this up on the talk page instead of disregarding the guidelines set up on Wikipedia and just nominating this for deletion. That is just plain rude and uncalled for." Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Also did you even look at the talk page? Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not unnominating anything and I don't have to go to any talk page to discuss non-notable articles. Just because you can pull other articles that exist out does not mean that this one can stand on its own.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why can't you find sources instead of acting like you own Wikipedia? The subject of Power Rangers is notable and so are its releases especially as the main page list nothing about home media releases and it should like any other page does, just because you don't like it or are too lazy to help doesn't mean you got to be rude and delete someone's work that they just started. Also keep this off my talk page. You need to read some of the WP guidelines because you are breaking a lot of them. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have to do what you think I have to do. I don't think the page is useful or is notable. Just because it's a list of things from something that is notable does not confer notability upon the list. I messaged you here. Per my request on my talk page that goes on your talk page because the convo started here. Do not restore it on my user talk again. And I've been here since 2006. I know the rules more than you do in your one month of being here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I started this conversation on your talk page, it did not start on mine all you posted were notifications but the conversation started on your page, so keep it off my talk page, please. 2. For someone who claims to have been around since 2006, you show that you have a poor sense of the rules as I said in the Adf "Taking it upon yourself to redirect a page and then going and nominating it instead of say finding sources to help make the page notable seems to me like you own Wikipedia. Also, and you just incriminated yourself, because you think it should not exist you decide you cannot help the page and that it should have been redirected and now you are nominating it for deletion shows that you do not show good faith and act like you own Wikipedia and now you are twisting it on me saying that I do not show good faith, how else should I take that as you saying you are not showing good faith and that you own Wikipedia? When you can answer that without twisting it on me then talk." That does not show good faith and ownership to me. Nor did you discuss it properly you just up and made decisions on your own. That is not good faith and ownership to me. So why don't you change your ways so it does not look that way instead of taking things upon yourself. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit I made suggests otherwise. I made a bold edit. It's allowed. And there are no steps that I skipped in sending this page to AFD. Now stop restoring the thread on my talk page. I will talk to you here or on the AFD page.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Extended AFD discussion

 * Taking it upon yourself to redirect a page and then going and nominating it instead of say finding sources to help make the page notable seems to me like you own Wikipedia. Also, and you just incriminated yourself, because you think it should not exist you decide you cannot help the page and that it should have been redirected and now you are nominating it for deletion shows that you do not show good faith and act like you own Wikipedia and now you are twisting it on me saying that I do not show good faith, how else should I take that as you saying you are not showing good faith and that you own Wikipedia? When you can answer that without twisting it on me then talk. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD. I made a bold edit. You reverted it. Here's the discussion about the edit. And I have not incriminated crap. I don't have to help out with things that I don't want to. You have made a claim that I "own Wikipedia" because I turned this page into a redirect first. That's a failure to assume good faith. I've done nothing of the sort in return. I simply do not think this is an article that belongs on the website and this page will tell me if other people agree or disagree beyond spending a week yelling at you on a talk page in a circular argument.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And how is that assume good faith to make a "bold edit" and then nominating the page for deletion, because you did not think a page is notable? I am still confused on that part. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You assume (or fail to assume) good faith of the users. I've not said anything about your behavior. I just thought that this page was not up to snuff. All you've done is accuse me of things.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not assuming or failing to assume anything, and you are failing to answer my question. "How is it assume good faith to make a "bold edit" and then nominating the page for deletion, because you did not think a page is notable?" Also I am adding our converation from our talk page on here as neither of us want it on our talk page.Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved this mess of a copy-paste to this nomination's talk page so it doesn't clutter up this one.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And you accused me of WP:OWN. That's an automatic WP:AGF failure.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing as you pretty much admitted you did not assume good faith by redirecting the page or nominating the page for deletion as you will not answer the question, why is this nominated for deletion then? Because it seems to me that if you did not assume good faith when redirecting and nominating the page then you could answer the question but you cannot and you want to accuse me of "WP:AGF failure" when you yourself did by both redirecting and nominating this page for deletion and I am not suppose to assume by these action that you seem to act like you "WP:OWN" Wikipedia. I am sorry but you are making very little sense to me nor do I see the point of this nomination as your agruments are mute as you cannot just call something "This list seems to fall foul of WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE. The sources are just links to Amazon listings internationally that show that the releases exist and are/were for sale, but not that this is particularly a notable article on its own to garner its separate coverage (or any coverage for that matter)." and "I do not think that this topic should have an article because of the lack of reliable sources and the overabundance of simply showing that the DVDs et al exist." That to me is not assuming good faith and then taking it upon yourself to redirect and then nominate the page for deletion seems like ownership to me. So tell me how am I did a "WP:AGF failure" if your actions show pretty much that is what you are doing? Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not a violation of WP:AGF. Stop it with these accusations.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it not? You are making assumptions based on your own opinion, how is that not a violation? I am sorry but I tend to disagree with you on that because of your reasonings as they do not seem to me good faith edits to base things on your own personal opinion and then take it upon yourself to do something about it. I am sorry I do not agree so please do not accuse me making accusations when I am giving you exactly why I feel that you have. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not assumed that your creation of this page was done in bad faith. I just do not think that it is a topic that Wikipedia should cover. You have not given me the same benefit.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could have given you the same benefit but you handled this the wrong way I am sorry to say that and then just expect me not to feel this way. I mean the page is not even a day old. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that a page be allowed to stay as is just because it is new. If it was not ready to be an article, then you could have made it in your talk page first.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. How about this. We redirect the page for the time being and work on it together, and others, I am sure it can be notable if more then one person works on it. What you think? Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think that it is a valid topic at any stage of creation. That is why the AFD was made.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is valid. You have given no evidence as to why it is not a valid topic. So there is no reason for it to be on an AFD. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I am sorry your personal opinion is not enough of a reason. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well tough nuggets. My understanding of the topic matter is behind my opinion. And I've explained why it does not meet the criteria of inclusion.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No you haven't you have based it on your personal opinion and have given no explination as it does meet criteria as I have explained over and over again, you just are basing it on your personal opinion NOT on why it does not meet criteria of inclusion. Sorry, but that is the truth. It is all your opinion nothing else. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You may think that it meets the GNG requirements but I do not and neither does Chillum. There's no significant coverage. It's just several dozen links to DVD sale pages. That's not significant coverage. You only have one source that discusses the DVDs as a topic rather than a bunch of links supporting the fact that the DVDs exist. And that's your only reliable source independent of the subject. And that source does not presume that it's a valid standalone topic. At best, the fact that Shout! Factory is releasing the DVDs is a one sentence mention on the MMPR page and not a whole page dedicated to just the DVD releases. And you keep falling back on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Hannah Montana and Family Guy lists have the same problem as this one. Nothing discussing the DVDs as the subject of an article and just several dozen places to buy the DVDs. I've sent them to AFD too.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

And I seriously doubt that TVShowsOnDVD.com can be used as a source to support this article's notability.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am done discussing this with you, you just want your way and do not care that you are in the wrong as was pointed out to you in your AFD for List of Family Guy DVDs: "A list of home media releases for televisions program is common. This would normally be contained within the the main article, but as this list is large and the main Family Guy article is approaching SIZE, it is completely reasonable to consider this a spinout of the main article to cover home media. (And I'm pretty confident that if really one wanted to question notability, the individual DVDs can be shown notable via such DVD release/review sites, but that's not a requirment for a spinout like this)." This is no different. And you pretty much proved to me that all this is is to get your way when you went and nominated those two articles for deletion and you lied to Chillum as you pretty much said you do not think this should be an article period not because it is unreliable so you are just talking to a brickwall as you have given me enough evidence to prove this is all just based on your personal opinion. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Extended AFD discussion 2
A list of home media releases for televisions program is common. This would normally be contained within the the main article, but as this list is large and the main Family Guy article is approaching SIZE, it is completely reasonable to consider this a spinout of the main article to cover home media. (And I'm pretty confident that if really one wanted to question notability, the individual DVDs can be shown notable via such DVD release/review sites, but that's not a requirment for a spinout like this). --M ASEM (t) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Also I scratched out his comment to Chillum as that was a lie because if you look at the talk page he clearly states "I do not think that it is a valid topic at any stage of creation. That is why the AFD was made. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)" so he lied there and also if you look at the bottom this is pretty much just him trying to get his way and Wikipedia, if I am correct, does not work like that as he went and nominated the two pages I set as an example for deletion just to get his way. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there was no section on the page for that and seeing as there was more then just one region that released the series I did not see why there should not have been a page. Also I notice and I do not know why it was originally on the page according to the history and then you removed it. So I see no beneficial by having that source on the main page. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see sources that support elements of the list but none that support the topic itself. Chillum 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am confused. The topic is a list of home media releases, how is there not support of the topic itself? Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you have sources that the releases exist is not enough to support keeping an article about the releases as a group because as a group they do not meet the general notability guidelines.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it does not: Direct copypaste of WP:GNG removed— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop directly copying content from other pages and pasting here. You can link to them. And GNG still says reliable sources, of which every Amazon listing does not count.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then stop quoting pages that it follows. It has everything on WP:GNG and again with the list so you can see it has it if you would have let me finish what I was doing instead of removing it.:
 * "Significant coverage": ✅ There is no original research needed as it is common knowledge they have had home media releases.
 * "Reliable: ✅ It has all that.
 * "Sources": ✅ Obviously it follows this.
 * "Independent of the subject": ✅ Do not see any of that on there.
 * "Presumed": ✅ It's got a pretty good amount of reliable sources nor does it violate the two WPs.
 * Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop copying the entirety of the page here when you make your explanation. Just explain why it meets WP:GNG. And no, it does not meet significant coverage. Just because you have a billion sources that show the DVDs exist (not that they as a group are something that has been discussed in detail) does not mean there was significant coverage. Also, another note, I had to refactor his response because of his direct copy-pasting of WP:GNG.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did but you removed it. So here is where it all stands. Your personal opinion is not enough reason for the page not to be notable as I show it is valid and you do not think it is but that is your opinion, it follows all the WP:Guidelines, it has more then one source, etc. So it passes WP:GNG. It is notable as it has to do with a current subject, which is Power Rangers, I am assuming the franchise is still running and that MMPR is very popular. I pretty much molded it after List of Family Guy DVDs and List of Hannah Montana DVDs, which all three pages do the same and so if those two are valid then so is this page. Which knocks out your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as it is valid sorry, because they are no different and they all use the same ideas and sources, etc and is used as examples to show how this page does follow the same thing as they do. The only thing wrong with the page is your personal opinion which is not valid or a good enough reason to have the page removed or redirected. Sorry, but that is the honest truth. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained how it is a violation of WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE, how doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG, and how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument for you to make (and just maybe Wikipedia shouldn't have those other two articles either). Only one of the sources discusses these as a group and the rest just support individual entries in the group. This means it does not meet WP:GNG. No number of Amazon listings is going to change that.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No! You have given your opinion that is it, it does not violate WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE if it did then why have you not nominated List of Family Guy DVDs and List of Hannah Montana DVDs? Proof one that is your opinion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as I said is invalid as I stated the mention of those are for examples and you completely disregard that and do not care. Proof two that it is your opinion. Proof three that it is your opinion is your comment here "and just maybe Wikipedia shouldn't have those other two articles either", proof three it your personal opinion. Proof four you say there is only one source when there is more then one source and has been so please stop saying it is just Amazon.com as a source as that is a lie. There is in fact in total now 36 sources and not all of them are Amazon.com. So keep showing that it is based on your opinion. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read this:
 * Don't copy other peoples edits to this page. Just provide a link to what they said. You need to stop futzing with other peoples comments. You particularly had no right to strike out my own comment here just because you perceive something about my stance on this matter.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WTF
Guys this is getting silly. I tried to comment on an AfD and my comments got dragged to the talk page along with this quagmire of a discussion. I will leave my moved comments here and make new comments at the AfD but please don't move my stuff around again.

You have both made your opinions very clear, so let the AfD run its course and stop trying to settle it by kilobytes of bickering. Chillum 04:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bumblebee moved it here by himself despite having no need to prior. I only moved a large portion of the fighting between myself and him here to keep the AFD clear of it.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He also refactored one of my comments without my permission.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. You did lied first of all so do not not say that I refactored your comment when you did by lying. 2. Her question belongs on the talk page not the actual discussion. So please do not add it back. 3. Ryulong, stop harassing me on my talk page, do not post on it anymore. Is that in anyway unclear? Your intimidation tactics to get your way will not work so just stop posting on my talk page. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You struck out my comment. That's not allowed. And Chillum's question went on the main page first. You had no right to move it. And because we are in direct dispute right now you do not have the luxury of denying me access to your user talk.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I do have every right to tell you not to post on my talk page because what you are doing is all to get your way so just stop and leave me alone. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was done and you restarted everything so do not say that you have any rights. I left Wikipedia and I was not on and you went and started crap behind my back and left threatening fucking messages on my talk page so do not sit here and say I do not have a right to tell you not to message my talk page because I have every right especially with you starting bullshit drama to get your way. I don't have time for it so keep it yourself. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are in the middle of a discussion on multiple pages' content you do not have the luxury of denying me access to your user talk, particularly when you are violating so many rules constantly. And just because you are not online does not mean I was wrong in trying to fix everything you broke.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)