Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power ring (DC Comics)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power ring (DC Comics)‎

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

Contested PROD. The fictional object as a stand-alone object does not meet the general notability guideline as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As it is, any article about it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information since the ring does not have reception and significance in reliable secondary sources. The article itself references most of the content with primary sources, the majority of them from comic books, one from a tertiary source published by DC Comics, one about the inspiration behind its creation, one where it is barely mentioned with regards to the plot of the Green Lantern comics and the rest with interviews with comic book creators working at the moment of the interview in the comic books where the object appears, so the article does not show how this object is notable beyond the plot of Green Lantern media. Nothing within the article shows how the object is notable. A quick search engine test does not show objective evidence that power ring as a subject has reception or significance beyond the plot of series, since all that appears are tertiary sources, trivial mentions and unreliable sources, but nothing that provides reception or significance. In fact, there is no evidence that it exists as a topic in reliable sources outside of this article, which implies that the content of the article was created with original research by synthesis. With all this, I do not believe that the fictional object qualifies as a subject that deserves a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—there are plenty of third party sources that discuss this fictional element. here are a few:

William Irwin; Jane Dryden; Mark D. White (3 May 2011). Green Lantern and Philosophy: No Evil Shall Escape This Book. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 252–. ISBN 978-0-470-57557-4. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — a book full of academic essays on the green lantern and philosophy, many of which discuss the ring at length. i have it pointed at one in particular, but looking at the table of contents will show that there are plenty of other instances; published by wiley, than which more reliable sources hardly get.
Craig Shutt (July 2003). Baby boomer comics: the wild, wacky, wonderful comic books of the 1960s!. Krause Publications. pp. 128–. ISBN 978-0-87349-668-1. Retrieved 14 October 2011. —another one, not so deep as a well, but shall suffice. also not published by DC comics.
Lois H. Gresh; Robert E. Weinberg (3 September 2002). The science of superheroes. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 98–. ISBN 978-0-471-02460-6. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — here's another one published by wiley, about the physics of superheroes, with extensive discussion of the ring.
Chris Ryall; Scott Tipton (5 June 2009). Comic Books 101: The History, Methods and Madness. IMPACT. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-1-60061-187-2. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — this one might be a little bit fanboy, and it's probably a vanity press, but i'm putting it in anyway, since at least it's third party.
Sean Wise (1 March 2009). How to Be a Business Superhero: Prepare for Everything, Train with the Best, Make Your Own Destiny at Work. Penguin. pp. 43–. ISBN 978-0-399-53456-0. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — published by penguin. a little self-helpy, but clearly a source for discussion of cultural place of ring.
Arie Kaplan (October 2008). From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and comic books. Jewish Publication Society. pp. 90–. ISBN 978-0-8276-0843-6. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — "jewish signifiers" in the battle of the power rings. it doesn't get more third party than this, nu?

i could go on and on and on. the subject is notable. the article can be fixed by editing.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out a few things about these sources for those who wish to cite them in the discussion:

None of the essays discuss the actual reception or significance of the power ring. They merely comment it as part of the plot premise. In fact, Beware my power, the essay cited in page 252, only mentions power ring in that page and all it does is comment that willpower is the limitation of the power ring, all related to the plot of the series and nothing related to reception or significance of the power ring concept. Same situation with the rest of essays where power ring is mentioned.
Two trivial mentions that again only talk about the ring from a plot-perspective.
As with the others, this one only comments about the ring from a plot-perspective.
A trivial mention.
A very short mention from a plot-perspective.
A single mention with not mention of reception or significance.

Note that all mentions of the power ring are with regard to the basic plot of Green Lantern, nothing about the power ring as a subject itself, which is why I mentioned objective evidence. Also, note that none of these sources gives reception or significance for the power ring and, outside of the first source, the sources have only short trivial mentions. In my opinion, they show that power ring as a subject is completely dependent of the Green Lantern concept and cannot work as a stand-alone topic since it can only be discussed as a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many topics are dependent on other topics, this is not a reason for deletion. The first reference above is not a trivial mention, the introduction alone addresses the subject in detail, meaning no original research is needed to extract the content, and is more than a trivial mention. The second reference is the same, it is not the primary topic of the source, but it is much more than a trivial mention. Same with the third reference above. It easily passes significant coverage, as well as the other requirements detailed in WP:GNG. The fourth reference directly discusses the ring in great detail, with it being the primary topic of that section. In no way could that be considered "trivial". There are multiple reliable, third-party sources, thus the article fulfills the requirements of WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 05:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of this notable item will be found in places that discuss this notable long running series, and the DC comic universe itself. The sources found already demonstrate that. Dream Focus 10:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's real world coverage out there if we want it. For example, this source, compares a GL ring with US foreign policy. Anyway, the rings, lanterns and associated superheroes of the GL corps and its enemies are certainly notable. How we choose to divide up the content into pages is a matter of ordinary editing as it is our editing policy is to avoid deletion in such cases. Warden (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Knowledge of this term has entered the general culture, and it has obtained significant coverage as such, as noted above. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extreemly well written and highlt organized, tons of citations, a popular topic in the comic book community

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.