Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rito Revolto

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 merge to Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Rito Revolto. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rito Revolto[edit]

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

This character article lacks sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Rito Revolto if independent notability cannot be established. Has this already been tried and I missed it? Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably appropriate, though I do note that it's completely unsourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the Google News link above shows some mentions, certainly enough for V, hence being appropriate for inclusion in a characters list for a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, I'm just noting that we might want to challenge the value of merging unreferenced content. It's one thing to say that content about the character belongs in a particular list, but it's another thing to say that this content belongs in a particular list. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you challenging the content outright? It's certainly a fallacy that every last scrap of info on Wikipedia has to be referenced. Is there some reason you feel this particular content is inaccurate? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) What I have said is perfectly clear. 2) That's not what fallacy means. 3) The burden of proof lies with those defending inclusion to provide references. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Character in a major artistic franchise Brainplanner (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is 12 years old. I don't like saying "other stuff exists" in these discussions, but there is Template:Power Rangers characters that should be used as a guideline to make this sourceable. All it takes is episode sources to satisfy that. — Wylie pedia 04:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as suggested above. From looking at the Google News hits I think it is possible to write a sentence or two about the subject sourced to reliable sources, but the subject doesn't seem to have much more independent notability than that. Minor characters in significant franchises are often dealt with in character lists. The Keep arguments above aren't based on our policies and guidelines: the fact that the subject is a character in a major franchise does not make them notable, and while the article could be entirely sourced to episodes that would basically turn it into a plot summary, and the age of the article is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 22:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect entirely as it's only a character clearly best known from the series. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 3 August 2016 (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.