Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulk and Skull

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk and Skull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I've PRODed this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded now by User:Mast303 with edit summary "this article is fairly long". To that, I'll reply that WP:ITSLONG is not a particularly strong argument, we will need better then this. Otherwise, the best I can recommend is to redirect this to the List of Power Rangers characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is fairly long. Also, it has several references and sufficient explanation. Mast303 (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. Gag characters, but very long-running gag characters. I expect that additional sources can be found. BD2412 T 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers characters. I see nothing in the article or in the provided sources indicating a pass of WP:GNG, although their existence can certainly be cited as part of a larger list. Previous !votes are along the lines of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD arguments aren't 'votes' and I did provide sources, not just argue that they must exist.★Trekker (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your sources seem to be without regard to reliability or significant coverage, or whether the article is clickbait. Simply scraping all mentions from the web is not an adequate demonstration. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    !vote also stands for non votes. The exclamation is there on purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per StarTrekker; there are enough sources for the article to pass WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is suffering from a bad case of all-plot-summary, but they are incredibly long-running characters and the sourcing demonstrates that they are considered popular and iconic. By the way I’m about as neutral as it’s possible to be because I know next to nothing whatsoever about power rangers. Dronebogus (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2023 (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.