Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countdown to Destruction

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. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown to Destruction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notable enough for being the season finale of an internationally broadcast TV series (see [1]). The huge list of monsters at the bottom was superfluous though and I've deleted it for now. It also badly needs references. Smocking (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide Dwanyewest (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is the same user as the nominator. You do not make a second "vote" for deleting the page if you are suggesting it be deleted in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Major season finale, the episode is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also discovered that it is included on a DVD where all episodes are included as fan favorites from a poll of some form operated by Disney.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finale of a notable TV series. jgp T C 22:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory Dwanyewest (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to keep making comments to add onto reasons why you want the page to be deleted, add it to your initial summary instead of as new comments. And please try to keep your signature on the same line as your comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to keep repeating yourself. If you are going to expand your deletion reasoning, don't do it in a new comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a reliable source that shows that this is a notable episode can be found. Delete if no reliable source that shows that this is a notable episode can be found. Powergate92Talk 04:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times have I told you that it's nigh impossible to find reliable sources about individual episodes of children's television shows?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do realise the onus is on a editor to prove what they are saying is true WP:PROVEIT. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.[1] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.[2] If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you stop randomly quoting policy on us? If you have something to say say it. Don't just copy and paste shit from policy and guideline pages. The article now has two references that show that the episode is notable as it was chosen amongst several others by the fans to be on a special DVD, one of which includes a review (even if it is on the Amazon.com page).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For five years this article has been in need of reliable sources and still suffers from having none. The subject simply lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore fails the general notability guideline. Being a plot-only description that lacks a discussion of the reception and significance of the work is also an example of what Wikipedia is not. - Sarilox (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References have since been found.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established by substantial coverage. This episode has not been shown to be notable separate from the Power Ranger series as a whole. Racepacket (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the fact that I added two references that source its inclusion in a DVD compilation based on a fan poll put forth by the copyright owner mean nothing?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reference 1 can't be used to show notability as WP:Notability#General notability guideline says ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity" and WP:Notability#Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity says "Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large." So now there's 1 reference you are using to show notability but you need more then 1 or 2 references as WP:Notability#General notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" 1 or 2 references are not "significant coverage". Powergate92Talk 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's more than one can ever hope to get for a children's television show's episode.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements, i.e. notability has been established by substantial and significant coverage for our purposes. Article clearly meets WP:Notability. Well done! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per lack of anything resembling genuine sources and strongly protest the misleading conduct of the keepmongers here and at other similar AfDs. The "sources" for this article consist of a single paragraph on the Disney site which is so short I might as well quote it in its entirety:
This ultimate collection of favorite Power Rangers adventures as voted on by the fans includes "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: White Light -- Parts 1 & 2," "Power Rangers In Space: Countdown To Destruction Parts 1 & 2," "Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy: To The Tenth Power," "Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue: Trakeena's Revenge -- Parts 1&2," and "Power Rangers Wild Force: Forever Red."

and an Amazon link to buy the DVD. To call this "substantial and significant coverage" is wrong. Completely wrong. Staggeringly, blatantly, totally and irredeemably wrong. These "sources" are supposed to justify this big huge rambling pile of cruft? Give me a break. Reyk _YO! 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of sourcing is a terrific reason for both deletion and for calling a truly abysmal article what it is. Reyk _YO! 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another editor in good standing has demonstrated that sources verify this notable episode. "Cruft" is nonsense non-term that we do not use to justify anything here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not liking how something is written, is not a valid reason for deletion. Most articles start off like that, and some of them improve over time. Dream Focus 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The way that WP:GNG is supposed to work is that Wikipedia tracks the degree of specificity of independent media. For example, the last episode of M*A*S*H drew record crowds and much media coverage. The last episode of Power Rangers did not. That tells us that the finale of a kids TV series is not worth a separate article under WP:GNG. In part, this is because such articles are an invitation for original research. How can we properly source the plot summary in this article from secondary sources? Being a "finale" is not a basis for notability. Racepacket (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How can you possibly be aware of the ratings/viewers for this or any particular episode of Power Rangers or any such television series? Children's television series are never going to get the level of news coverage that sitcoms or dramas or anything else will ever get. The references are sufficient to show that this particular episode is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable finale of notable show. Finding sources for this seems easy - only took a minute to find a good encyclopedic source. Should be kept for further improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, it is a notable finale of a notable show. Google book search shows four results for "Countdown to Destruction" AND "Power Rangers" [2]. Not sure if any of them count. Most of the news search results were from tv.com. Children shows don't get the media coverage that other shows get, so you aren't going to be able to find news sources talking about it like they do every episode of the Simpsons or Battlestar Galactica. Millions of people watched this show, it therefor notable by rule of common sense. Dream Focus 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has shown improvements, and needs continued improvement, but that's no reason to delete. Other users here have proven other sources are out there, which establish WP:N, and I imagine there are even more if you look hard enough. — Hun ter Ka hn 13:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable source to meet WP:V for the episode of a childrens show is the work itself, and if its in DVD there's no problem. The article would improve by being cut to half the length,because the reader with a general interest would be more likely to read it, but that's a different problem. Given the show is important enough, the only question is whether it can be said in combination articles or separately. It would be a matter of style, except fo rthe problem of the overshortening of the sections of combination articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have a removed a claimed source that does not even mention the subject, and repeat my protest at this kind of bad sourcing. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure where you pulled that out, because it seems to cover the subject as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even that source you just presented still has nothing to do with Countdown to Destruction. It merely discusses Powers not this episode Dwanyewest (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the same book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does the book mention "Countdown to Destruction"? Yes or no? Does it back up the paragraph the citation is attached to? Yes or no? The answer to both questions is no, therefore this is a misuse of sourcing. Surely you cannot be so dense as to misunderstand this. Reyk _YO! 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you'd be right that it does not mention "Countdown to Destruction" because the book was published before the episode ever aired. However, you could be a bit less of an asshole when conversing with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Have I hurt your feelings? Oh dear. Perhaps it's just that I have run out of patience for the dodgy stuff that's been going on here, and feel strongly that it needs to stop. Faking sources doesn't just hoodwink the Wikipedia community, it also deceives our readers- and if that isn't something that warrants a strong response, I don't know what is. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Ryulong you are hardly in a position to lecture others on civility [3] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SENSE. This was a popular children's TV series. This particular episode is singled out as one of the series' "great moments" in this book (p. 193, with preview in amazon). The article gets several thousand hits a month. I don't see who is served by deleting it. --JN 466 00:03, 27 February 2010 (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.