The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
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
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
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
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
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