Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light of Destruction

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 Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light of Destruction and other Yu-Gi-Oh! booster packs

Bundled nomination for all booster pack articles. For some reason, past AfDs have not done this, even though this stuff is clearly unencyclopedic and better served at the Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia. JuJube (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, appropriate to the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia site but not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most important info to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets. Anything more than a few sentences on a booster pack is appropriate for the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia, but not here, per Stifle. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All No satisfactory reason for deletion is provided by the nomination. A block deletion of 14 articles on such a feeble basis is disruptive editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling a bundled nom "disruptive editing" when every single other booster pack article has been successfully AfD'd is in itself disruptive editing. JuJube (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reasoning is absurd. Obviously every single other booster pack article has not been successfully AFDed because there are still huge numbers of them which you include in this enormous bundle. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon. The reasoning there applies here. Now be quiet. JuJube (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That was just a single AFD. It was bungled procedurally and the quality of the nomination and discussion was low. In particular, no effort seems to have been made to ascertain whether the articles might be improved and the !votes were mostly lazy and prejudiced per nom and fancruft. Now, I don't play Yu-Gi-Oh but I do know that it is hugely notable, being the best-selling CCG and having sold billions of cards to millions of customers. There will be extensive coverage of its expansions in the trade and gaming press. I am familiar with some of this in English and expect that there is much more in Japanese too. Please address the topic in a way that demonstrates some understanding of it rather than feeble wikilawyering like clearly unencyclopedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The irony of Colonel Warden of all people accusing someone else of wikilawyering is hilarious. I'm done with this guy. JuJube (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have little interest in lawyering since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. What matters is the articles and topics. I just spent a couple of minutes looking for sources and soon found an article in the Wall Street Journal which explains about expansions like Blue Eyes White Dragon, Metal Raiders and Magic Ruler. As usual, it seems that the editors who worked on these articles had little idea about finding and citing sources. I am familiar with more specialist journals such as Scrye and am quite sure that they have had feature articles on each of these expansions. All that is required here is some editing effort. AFD nominations grounded in ignorance are disruptive because they distract from genuine improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is notable coverage for Yu-Gi-Oh itself, but it's only trivial coverage of the expansion packs themselves. It's certainly not enough coverage to have a different article for every pack. Yu-Gi-Oh!_Trading_Card_Game_sets already exists, and most packs are redlinks, so there's lot of place of expansion. Merge everything and split out when it's too long but not now --Enric Naval (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge all to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets. The lead paragraph of each contains all of the information that would be needed for context. The lists of individual cards are not needed. -Sean Curtin (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. These articles consist of lists of cards with some limited discussion of their mechanics in the game, which clearly falls under WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per wikipedia not being a game guide, and this being fancruft. The expansions are totally non-notable outside the context of the game. At least merge everything into a single article. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all as verifiable and notable information associated with notable franchise. Acceptable spinoff or sub-articles. "Cruft" arguments are inherently weak. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Phantom Darkness does not have an AfD notice on its page. SubStandardDeviation (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply fixed. JuJube (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no real-world notability, LoBEWD precedent, several articles read like an advertisement. Lists more appropriate for fansites like Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. SubStandardDeviation (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Material that is acceptable for other wikis is generally acceptable for the all-encompassing wiki. I would imagine at some point just about all of our articles will or could overlap with some other encyclopedia or wiki. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this was true, then we would have more articles on Star Wars than Wookiepedia. But it's the other way around, consensus is to delete many trivia articles on Star Wars and let other specialized wikis handle that stuff while we only talk about the notable stuff. I imagine the same applies to Yu-Gi-Oh. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would maybe have a comparable amount of articles to Wookiepedia, not necessarily more, and I see no really good reason why a paperless compendium should not contain such articles. The real consensus is actually to indeed have these articles as evidenced by the hundreds if not thousands of good faith editors who create and work on these articles sometimes over the course of years. The handful of half dozen or so regulars who participate in any given five day AfD to be realistic really does not reflect the actual consensus of the community. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are not enough editors to watch over all those articles (so it's a workforce problem, and not a problem of paper), and they just list non-notable trivia that only interest to fans, aka WP:FANCRUFT. I'm not going to enter on whether AfD represents correctly the community. If you think it doesn't, then this is not the proper forum for this, and you should raise the issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of editors. The population, including the internet literate population, and also those coming to Wikipedia is only getting larger. "Cruft" is just not a helpful word to use in these discussions. If AfDs take into account every good faith editor who worked on the article in question, but who might not happen to be online during the five-day AfD into consideration, then perhaps these discussions do reflect consensus, but if they don't also acknowledge that anyone who worked in good faith on the article in question logically also believes it should be kept, then AfD does indeed need reform. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My early edits to Wikipedia were creating articles for minor concepts related to Sailor Moon and killer7. I worked hard on them, but they were eventually merged. It doesn't bother me though because I understand well the concept of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If "losing their hard work" really bugs people, they probably shouldn't be here in the first place. JuJube (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or editors should focus on improving articles they're knowledgeable about and are willing to work on and not worry about articles that others are knowledgeable about and are willing to work on. Wikipedia is supposed to be a paperless compendium of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. We gain hundreds of new users every day. There is no real, non elitist reason, why we can or should not cover as much as we possibly can. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the idea that we should try to be an encyclopedia with reliable relevant information and not a mere pop culture compendium is "elitist", so be it. JuJube (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no responsible reason why we can't be both. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets, where a small paragraph could very easily be added to each entry in the list to give information about the cardset. Also, the expansion names are going to be searched for by readers, so we may as well take them to where the information is. -- saberwyn 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:IINFO, WP:N and WP:V. Biruitorul (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such comments are inadequate per WP:VAGUEWAVE. You must justify such references and this seems difficult since they seem quite innaccurate. The information is obviously not indiscriminate, being highly specific, and it easy to verify by reference to the manufacturer or the numerous magazines which cover this material in detail. Please do not invent such imaginary objections since deletion of other editors' work is a serious matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets. Fairly obvious thing to do, really -- if the items of a set aren't individually notable but the set is, move them into the article about the set. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but, include the titles in the list at Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets(although that article could probably do with some cleanup itself) Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and they are all listed under "Sets available in the U.S." --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets as per Quasirandom. Alone, they have no hint of notability, but in that article, they do. Razor flame 16:29, 20 May 2008 (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.