Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Oliver

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 no consensus. No clear consensus as to whether the sources are sufficient to indicate the notability of this fictional character. Noting also that the discussion was likely started by a banned user, but I'm overlooking that as other users in good standing and in good faith opined for a Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Oliver

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

Article about a fictional character from TV show. Lacks notability. AS92813 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AS92813 has since been blocked for

sockpuppetry. He is still suspected of being a sockpuppet of the banned user(s) known variably as BuickCenturyDriver or Don't Feed the Zords.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy close: Discussion has been opened by a sleeper sockpuppet in the whole affair that happened yesterday documented at
WT:AFD#User trying to delete nomination and in the Survivor AFDs from last year, usually identified as Don't Feed the Zords or BuickCenturyDriver.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Um, no. As yet it is only you that has claimed this is a sock... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because yet again
it is obvious and he's been blocked for evasion. Stop assuming I'm wrong because I'm trying to find a different solution to dealing with this page. It's sockpuppetry and block evasion through and through and I've had to deal with this for years now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Not only that but the article has multiple references to support notability, accompanied by the fact that the character was on a television series for 5 consecutive seasons, appeared in two theatrical releases, and was brought back for a 6th season on the TV series. Notability is established. Whether or not the article is particularly good is different.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Lets see:
Two links to dvdtalk.com - a website selling Power Rangers DVDs. Not "independent of the subject." [1][2]

Two links to websites (voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog [3] & bleacherreport.com [4]) discussing the actor who played the character, not the character himself.

A piece from the Baltimore Sun. Mentions Tommy in passing. [5]

A short NYT piece about the Power Rangers franchise. Mentions Tommy Oliver in passing. [6]

Another NYT piece, from 1985. A bit more relevant, and at a pinch this might just pass as "significant coverage" - of Power Rangers. [7]

As far as I can see, we have one source just possibly providing 'significant coverage' sufficient to say anything meaningful about Tommy Oliver - not the multiple sources required. And no source which does anything to establish that Tommy Oliver has any significance except as a Power Rangers character - one that, if we eliminate the repetitive and totally unencyclopaedic fancruft plot summaries, can be adequately described in an encyclopaedic article on Power Rangers itself. Cut out the cruft, and merge anything salvageable to Power Rangers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing and article is bad but the subject is notable (Google results in the millions). And merging to
List of Power Rangers or List of Power Rangers characters and that would be a better place to stick this information that is not excessive plot summary. But this AFD which was created by someone obviously evading the block on those IPs from yesterday and is obviously a sockpuppet of some long standing banned sockpuppeteer (currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron) which means this should be closed and some better discussion be had regarding a way to deal with this article and the dozen others that are probably in just as shit shape that does not involve AFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said on your talk page, regardless of whether this has been started by a sock, I can see the merit of an AfD. Would you prefer to have this closed just so I can start another one? And no, stating that a subject is notable in bold doesn't make it so. It needs to be demonstrated that this subject is independently notable, via multiple independent sources providing significant coverage. Provide the sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I demonstrated it. There are sources in the artcle. There are millions of results on Google. There's these pieces about the character's reprisal in this year's season, a look back here, and the actor's desire to reprise the character in a new film. I'd rather try to fix this mess with all of the individual character articles for this TV franchise without AFD because it's only going to make trying to produce a proper list article more difficult. Yes, most of the page is plot summary and no one's discussed this character or any Power Rangers characters with the same critical commentary that you get from things that aren't 800 thinly veiled 22-minute-long toy commercials.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"no one's discussed this character or any Power Rangers characters with the same critical commentary that you get from things that aren't thinly veiled 800 22-minute-long toy commercials"? I'd say that was as good grounds for deletion as any. As for Google, see [8] "Google result counts are a meaningless metric." AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's grounds for cleanup and merging to somewhere else and not deletion. And don't link to offsite essays. If anything, prevalence in Google Books means something more than normal google search according to our local
WP:GHITS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
"Don't link to offsite essays"? If you are going to start coming up with meaningless bollocks about Google hits, I'll link to anything I damn well like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And before you link
WP:GHITS again, I suggest you read it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Offsite essays clearly do not have the acceptance of the community. I was wrong to cite raw google hit numbers, and we have our own page on that here that you could have used. But that same page points out the utility of Google Books, which shows that there are several books in their archives that discuss Power Rangers, and the presence of the character Tommy Oliver within them. There may not be an entire subset of academia dedicated to this like you can find for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I'd rather not have to keep arguing this on an AFD when more energy can be put forward into figuring out the best way to deal with this and articles on similar subjects and similar subpar quality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been editing this article since 2006.[9] How much longer will you need to deal with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been recently that the standards on fictional characters have changed such that something should be done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails
WP:GNG. --Nug (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Does meet GNG, more sources added.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. More articles discussing the actor who plays the character. Not even remotely significant coverage of the character himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the fact the actor is reprising the character and wants to have the character star in his own film not "significant coverage of the character"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is information about the actor, and about the Power Rangers franchise. Please provide a brief summary of what each of the three sources you have just added actually provides us in terms of useful encyclopaedic content concerning the 'Tommy Oliver' character. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The character will be appearing in the new season that is out this year and there are plans for the character to appear in his own film.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly irrelevant in terms of establishing independent notability. And see
WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see how
verifiable fact that someone has expressed a desire to create a film about this fictional character.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you explain how someone expressing such a desire would be an independent source, as required to establish notability? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say its independent if someone felt it was important to publish as part of an interview that was had.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure you would say that. Doesn't make it true. Not even remotely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's my argument. And I'm tired of repeating it. I found reliable sources. I'd rather this debate be closed because of the sockpuppetry because if memory serves, this is only going to act as a honeypot for more of this guy's sockpuppets to pile on and it's going to be closed as no consensus and only going to cause an even bigger shit storm. We should have closed this hours ago per
WP:DNFTT because now we're only feeding into this idiot's ego. I really envy you and other users who do not have to remember that they or their preferred topic areas are the target of multiple banned users some of which go back farther than they have been members of this site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The sources don't do much to establish notability for the character itself. This is more appropriate for Wikia, where in-depth plot details and extended fictional biographies are encouraged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think complete deletion is warranted here, nor is sending this to a Wikia which has probably already copied everything we have here verbatim (I know a few "mirrors"). This content could be merged into an appropriate article (barring all of the excessive plot summary) but said article does not exist yet. I have been planning on merging this and several related articles together into a unified character list, but as I say higher up on the page the logistics have been troubling me. As I said in my first statement, this discussion should be closed per
WP:DENY and I will gladly get rid of the article through merging somewhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - After edits, appears notable. May not have previously been notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete What we have here is an
WP:ALLPLOT which uses sources about the actor to try and establish notability for this character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I'm sure that
talk) 23:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The current content has no real merit for merging, and a new redirect can go to a character list or main article afterward. Unlike the characters mentioned above, this series isn't one to have received such detailed coverage in relation to the plot and cast details, especially for a single character. You'll likely find small bits and pieces that could "establish" notability in a vague sense, but it would likely be unnecessarily weighted just for the sake of giving the character an article. Anything related to casting can likely fit into the first series in which he appeared, and anything related to reception is likely to be so minor that it is not worth mentioning. That leaves a brief entry for a character list, which is all this seems to need. TTN (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If notability can be established, then that means this article can be cleaned up to fix the problems. And deletion is only going to cause problems when a character list can be made. Besides, this thing needs a procedural close due to being opened by a banned user's sockpuppets on multiple occasions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-established by precedent that once an AfD has attracted significant input from legitimate contributors, the fact that it was started illegitimately isn't sufficient grounds to close it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's still problematic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps - but problematic in a "Fodder for discussion at DRV" way and not a "Procedural close, now re-nominate and waste another week of time" way. Enough good faith comments have been made here, and an admin can judge them on the merits. Relax. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are sufficient sources to show some weak notability. The sources that discuss the actor discussing the character are tricky, but turn that around - who would care what he had to say unless the topic (the character) was one of interest? It's thin, but I think there's enough to justify the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article could certainly be improved, I believe that the character being the most prolific character in Power Rangers (being in more episodes than any other character and in both theatrical movies), makes him notable on Wikipedia. Also several changes have been made to the article since then to make it more notable. -Thunderforge (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources about the actor do not prove notability of the character. KonveyorBelt 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even when they exclusively deal with his portrayal of this character?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 24 February 2014 (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.