539:. It is preferable to have a list of episodes for a notable TV series than to have separate articles for each episode, when the individual episodes lack independent and reliable sources to show they are notable. Collectively, the episodes of a notable series can reasonably be considered notable. The names of the individual episodes are referenced to a firm which sells DVDs of the series. The airdates are unreferenced, but likely referenceable via TV Guide, as are the gist of the plots. The extended plot summaries could be pared down to what is referenceable to the TVdisc source or TV Guide. They likely are the writings of someone who has watched the disc. Does our guideline for writing about fiction require that we only cite what a secondary source says about a fictional work, or are editors allowed to summarize what happens, that is, a plain summary of events, without conjecture and interpretation? Deletion is not a substitute for editing, in any event. (Note: I have never watched the program, and am certainly not a fan).
578:
Britannica or somebody and seeing a list of episodes of the Mighty
Morphin Power rangers it really makes us look like a joke. It points to the work of children it really does whether 50 year old men like such series or not. How wikipedia ever hopes to gain any respect and credibility if content like this exists I have no idea. What concerns me is if people consider this sort of content encyclopedic then it opens up a huge area for fan crufters to pollute this site with further unreferenced child-like plots in universe with little relation to the real world. The fictional content on here is already huge but it is just going to get worse and worse as the criteria for notability just keeps getting lower and lower. So the series was a hit with children, why does this mean a list of episodes for a every series every released is appropriate? If the lists were done properly like
479:
of episodes etc. Some series like The SImpsons etc and actually contain the balance of information which is required for fiction by not only listing plot or episodes but containing actual "real" life information on it . List cruft is not exempt from the guidelines and it is not so much the idea of having lists as it is that they don't meet guidelines in this way..
129:
List completely lacks any reliable sources or comprehension, it is purely fan junk. The list has no context and to the casual wikipedian who is unfamiliar with the subject matter it is terrible given that the article is completely in the Power
Rangers universe and not our own. Utterly unencyclopedic.
716:
I agree with BlueSquadronRaven on what is necessary here. Articles like this are the way to handle episodes, combining plot and external factors. The plot sections that have been written need improvement, and the others need writing. Fore externals, I'd like to see exact timings, list of characters,
478:
Yes thats exactly what my concern is. However offtrack people's conception of an encyclopedia is in relation to traditional conservative views content however fan cruft still has to be verifiable and contain reliable sources and also contain non in-unvierse information such as the making and release
267:
Not that it has any bearing on the discussion, but yes I do, if it's a show or movie or novel I'm interested in. Of course, I also enjoy articles on
Astronomy, History, and Scotland, and I appreciate being able to find all of these in one place, but if you wish to focus on the first point, go right
577:
Yes but wikipedia isn't a TV guide. I can't see how they are considered encyclopedic. Knowledge (XXG) is not paper but I still just think we should be covering proper encyclopedic topics, an overview of the series is surely enough?. Just imagine turning the pages of a credible encyclopedia like
497:
The lack of referencing is a definite concern here. It is not one that is insurmountable, I don't think, so editing, rather than deletion, is the answer. Again, unfortunately, I'm not the one to talk to about it, as I'm not a fan, or I'd do it myself. I will, however, list it at the appropriate
602:
Didn't you make thousands of stub article about things like every museum in Greece, whether it was a major city institution ofr a curio shop or private collection which found its way onto a government list? How are your each of your stubs better than a list like this, which would make the main
717:
particular artists and others responsible, and ny published reviews or commentary. I have zero interest in the subject, but then any one of us can be expected to have zero interests in quite a lot of subjects in an encyclopedia. Nobody is forced to read all the articles.
537:
619:
So, we've established that some lists of this type are acceptable. Good. Then all that's standing in the way of this one is cleanup, sourcing, and some pretty colours for each season. That's a problem solved by editing, not deletion.
151:
The list does have context; it tells you what it's about at the very top of the page. The list is not in-universe; it's a list of episodes with a few synopses. It is not fan junk; it's a list. I suggest you read
302:
Episode lists are perfectly valid spin-out articles. For that matter, separate articles for every indivdual episode are allowed on
Knowledge (XXG). And article needing improvement is not grounds for deletion.
188:
Good? Hardly. I gather you are a young user who likes reading about comics and fictional characters. Fair enough if thats your thing but wikipedia is still an encyclopedia not an in universe list of fiction.
89:
84:
93:
76:
322:
400:
652:: Really? Delete it when it's just a flat out list with barely any summaries (except for the few episodes that had articles and were subsequently merged into this list as a whole)?โ
211:
You can make any assumptions you want about me (here's a hint, if the age you give on your userpage is accurate, I'm older than you, boy) but if you're going to close your mind to
361:
80:
122:
72:
64:
767:- hideous-looking and requires plot-cruft trimming, but entirely appropriate. An instance where clean-up is more likely and preferable than starting over. --
579:
797:
776:
759:
728:
708:
691:
665:
642:
612:
594:
571:
548:
520:
491:
472:
450:
428:
389:
350:
312:
290:
259:
241:
205:
182:
142:
58:
635:
513:
421:
382:
343:
283:
234:
175:
446:
736:
Episode list are fine, for any popular series. And of course its in universe, since its summaries of the episodes! How else would it be?
17:
812:
36:
628:
506:
414:
375:
336:
276:
227:
168:
160:
for guidelines on when breaking lists out of a main article is appropriate. A little more sourcing, and it's good. --
247:
OK then then you are an old man. Answer my question. Do you or do you not enjoy reading about fictional characters?
442:
686:
811:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
785:
564:
621:
499:
407:
368:
329:
269:
220:
161:
216:
190:
153:
438:
679:
674:
308:
793:
704:
559:
534:
659:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
737:
608:
603:
article about a TV series too long? Without its episodes, how would a TV series be notable?
583:
544:
531:
480:
248:
194:
131:
212:
157:
772:
460:
304:
49:
456:
789:
724:
700:
673:
and encourage editors be proactive in addressing any perceived flaws. AFD is not for
653:
465:
110:
604:
540:
193:
was written by a college professor who laid down the guidleines to fiction huh?
768:
719:
455:
What is the opinion of contributers here about this article being wholly
219:
don't get angry when the flaws in your arguments are pointed out. --
130:
If we must have such lists can we please keep it in one "article"?
805:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
268:
ahead. It doesn't change that the list is a valid topic. --
323:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
117:
106:
102:
98:
401:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
815:). No further edits should be made to this page.
699:: It's an episode list of a popular TV series.
362:list of Television-related deletion discussions
73:List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes
65:List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes
8:
395:
356:
317:
580:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes
582:I might not think so harshly about them.
399:: This debate has been included in the
360:: This debate has been included in the
321:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
784:-- nomination seems to be basically
24:
530:The MMPR was a notable TV series
437:- Accepted spin out article. -
1:
832:
191:Knowledge (XXG):Listcruft
808:Please do not modify it.
798:00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
777:20:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
760:19:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
59:21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
729:05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
709:03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
692:00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
666:21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
643:21:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
613:04:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
595:19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
572:19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
549:18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
521:15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
492:15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
473:15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
451:15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
429:14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
390:14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
351:14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
313:14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
291:14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
260:14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
242:14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
206:14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
183:14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
143:13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
556:, standard practice.
44:The result was
570:
431:
404:
392:
365:
353:
326:
823:
810:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
741:
682:
662:
656:
640:
633:
626:
592:
591:
569:
567:
557:
518:
511:
504:
489:
488:
468:
461:reliable sources
439:Peregrine Fisher
426:
419:
412:
405:
387:
380:
373:
366:
348:
341:
334:
327:
288:
281:
274:
257:
256:
239:
232:
225:
203:
202:
180:
173:
166:
140:
139:
120:
114:
96:
56:
34:
831:
830:
826:
825:
824:
822:
821:
820:
819:
813:deletion review
806:
754:
751:
748:
745:
742:
739:
680:
660:
654:
636:
629:
622:
585:
584:
565:
558:
514:
507:
500:
498:wikiproject. --
482:
481:
466:
422:
415:
408:
383:
376:
369:
344:
337:
330:
284:
277:
270:
250:
249:
235:
228:
221:
196:
195:
176:
169:
162:
133:
132:
116:
87:
71:
68:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
829:
827:
818:
817:
801:
800:
786:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
779:
762:
731:
711:
694:
668:
646:
645:
617:
616:
615:
575:
574:
551:
524:
523:
476:
475:
453:
432:
393:
354:
315:
296:
295:
294:
293:
245:
244:
186:
185:
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
828:
816:
814:
809:
803:
802:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
778:
774:
770:
766:
763:
761:
758:
757:
735:
732:
730:
726:
722:
721:
715:
712:
710:
706:
702:
698:
695:
693:
690:
689:
688:
684:
683:
676:
672:
669:
667:
663:
657:
651:
648:
647:
644:
641:
639:
634:
632:
627:
625:
618:
614:
610:
606:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
590:
589:
581:
573:
568:
563:
562:
561:ViperSnake151
555:
552:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
532:
529:
526:
525:
522:
519:
517:
512:
510:
505:
503:
496:
495:
494:
493:
490:
487:
486:
474:
470:
469:
462:
458:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
430:
427:
425:
420:
418:
413:
411:
402:
398:
394:
391:
388:
386:
381:
379:
374:
372:
363:
359:
355:
352:
349:
347:
342:
340:
335:
333:
324:
320:
316:
314:
310:
306:
301:
298:
297:
292:
289:
287:
282:
280:
275:
273:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
255:
254:
243:
240:
238:
233:
231:
226:
224:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
201:
200:
192:
184:
181:
179:
174:
172:
167:
165:
159:
155:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
141:
138:
137:
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
807:
804:
781:
764:
738:
733:
718:
713:
696:
687:
685:
678:
670:
649:
637:
630:
623:
587:
586:
576:
560:
553:
527:
515:
508:
501:
484:
483:
477:
464:
457:unreferenced
434:
423:
416:
409:
396:
384:
377:
370:
357:
345:
338:
331:
318:
299:
285:
278:
271:
252:
251:
246:
236:
229:
222:
217:WP:LISTCRUFT
198:
197:
187:
177:
170:
163:
154:WP:LISTCRUFT
148:
135:
134:
128:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
588:Dr. Blofeld
485:Dr. Blofeld
253:Dr. Blofeld
199:Dr. Blofeld
136:Dr. Blofeld
675:WP:CLEANUP
305:Edward321
53:Wizardman
790:Geo Swan
701:Iowateen
681:Schmidt,
631:Squadron
509:Squadron
447:contribs
417:Squadron
378:Squadron
339:Squadron
279:Squadron
230:Squadron
171:Squadron
123:View log
655:Ryลซlรณng
467:pd_THOR
459:to any
90:protect
85:history
605:Edison
541:Edison
463:? โ
213:WP:WAF
158:WP:SAL
118:delete
94:delete
769:EEMIV
755:Focus
638:Raven
566:Talk
516:Raven
424:Raven
385:Raven
346:Raven
286:Raven
237:Raven
178:Raven
121:) โ (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
794:talk
782:Keep
773:talk
765:Keep
734:Keep
725:talk
714:Keep
705:talk
697:Keep
671:Keep
650:Keep
624:Blue
609:talk
554:Keep
545:talk
528:Keep
502:Blue
443:talk
435:Keep
410:Blue
397:Note
371:Blue
358:Note
332:Blue
319:Note
309:talk
300:Keep
272:Blue
223:Blue
215:and
164:Blue
156:and
149:Keep
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
46:keep
788:.
720:DGG
445:) (
796:)
775:)
727:)
707:)
677:.
664:)
661:็ซ้พ
620:--
611:)
547:)
536:,
533:,
471:|
449:)
403:.
364:.
325:.
311:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
48:.
792:(
771:(
752:m
749:a
746:e
743:r
740:D
723:(
703:(
658:(
607:(
543:(
441:(
406:โ
367:โ
328:โ
307:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.