Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards


 * 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 Delete The arguments provided by both parties are (save for a couple of exclusions) sensible and reasonable, but the arguments of those in favour of deletion are more persuasive and the policies they quote are more important, there is consensus here that there are problems with verifiability and that sourcing was not up to scratch, and nobody suggested that could be fixed. I'm also persuaded by the suggestion it's something that might fit in with another site, such as Wikia and will be happy to provide content to whoever requires it to move it to another site. Nick (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list is a mixture of plot details and overly descriptive game information. There are no reliable, third party sources providing real world information to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. If a specific card is relevant to the description of something in the plot, it should be briefly described there, and I cannot imagine needing to link to a certain card for gameplay purposes on a general encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the game is notable, a list of cards is simply not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT Secret account 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You fail to provide evidence to support your assertion. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains why this is an empty argument. Warden (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a IDONTLIKEIT assertion Secret account 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN, being documented in detail in sources such as Trading Card Games for Dummies. Warden (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While notability is not inherited, longstanding consensus is that if X is notable, list of [elements of X] is an appropriate list, to keep each element from having a single article, and provide a single place for collecting information.  Yu Gi Oh is quite clearly notable, and no policy-based reason for deleting the list of elements (because Yu Gi Oh is a card game) has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INHERITED can someone please explain to me how each card is notable here? The topic Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game is notable, the cards themselves dont seem to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From the article: "The following is a list of notable cards that are in the Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. The cards listed are notable for their relevance to the anime and manga of the same name, its three spin-off series, Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's, and Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal, and the real-life card game" Okay then if the cards are notable then where are the additional sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be notable per WP:FICT since they are elements in a fictional work (both the anime and manga). Remove the word notable from the lead if that is causing an issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - largely per WP:IINFO. The article is also absurdly long and should be split into sub articles. If that were to be done I think it would be easy to see that the list(s) does not stand up to scrutiny. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article aids in the understanding of a notable franchise, just as List of Pokémon and List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets help understand that franchise. Each Pokemon is in fact just a playing card in the game.  Same thing here.  Just think about it like a character list, which all notable series have.   D r e a m Focus  01:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to argue on the grounds that Other Stuff Exists. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Characters from a series are not material items and the lists there help trim down excessive plot details for a series, if you want to merge the cards here to the character list or merge the more notable cards to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game then yes I would support that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep List of cards that are an essential part of a notable series --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The series is notable, the card game is notable, it does not make the cards themselves notable. The article pretty much contains just plot details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons given by others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The other reasons are WP:OSE and WP:ILIKEIT arguments - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reasons to keep include WP:FICT which states that the list elements do not have to be notable individually. I believe it does apply here given that the list includes usage in the anime and manga. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I Use this quite a lot, it's great to use, but for noting what deck I should make next in the real card game Titusfox Lives... 16:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titusfox (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:FICT is an essay.  The cards themselves are not notable.  I don't see any evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN, and all the sources are primary.  Wikia was made for this sort of article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - My argument is much simpler in that the list has a fair amount of original research and the references that are provided are broken or do not provide the verifiability that is needed for any article... list or not. There are no inline citations or reliable sources.  The companys that provide the cards, media and the Wikia (that already exists) cannot be used as the sources that hold this list up to Wikipedia standards. - Pmedema (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete- Overly detailed and excessively long list. "Wikipedia is not a rulebook" seems an appropriate way to interpret Not. The article is heavy on trivia and original research but light on reliable sources, and is creeping into WP:NOTDIR territory as well. Reyk  YO!  07:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This list is notable. It only includes well known cards, like the Sacred ones, i.e. Exodia and The God Cards. Its very similar to a list of characters, but for Major cards.  04:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.110.249 (talk)
 * keep Some cards are documented and discussed in third-party sources (which provides more than just prices) and  clearly count and there were a few others that might in the first two pages of a book search.  I'd prefer the list be trimmed or broken out, but eh. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability and inadequate sourcing. While some cards may have been covered in reliable third-party sources, the great majority has not been, at least not to an extent that would support most of the content of the article, as can be seen from the meagre and often unreliable references. And it's the potential for verifying article content, quite lacking here it seems, that's behind our sourcing-based concept of notability.  Sandstein   10:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If some of the cards have third party independent sources (and they do...) and the rest can be verified by primary sources (which would seem to be trivial) doesn't that mean that meeting WP:V on this topic is trivial? And in any case, we don't require lists where every element of the list needs to have an independent source. I'm not sure how either of your points apply here. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the sources used are price guides how would you work in the ones you call notable to make them sound not like a game guide? (WP:GAMEGUIDE). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Because Most card game websites provide the price, but not what the card does. User:titusfox TF Titusfox Lives... 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give a valid rationale in keeping this article please? Secret account 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIR, WP:V, WP:NOTINHERITED. The nearest I found to a source addressing the group or set itself was http://www.pojo.com/yu-gi-oh/FeaturedWriters/Ryoga/index.shtml. That's not WP:SIGCOV. As the content doesn't seem to attributable to reliable sources, even a merge isn't worth considering. Is all the info already included on wikia? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The question here is not whether each individual card is notable (some appear to be), nor is it whether the game itself is notable (it clearly is). Per WP:LISTN (which has been incorrectly interpreted and linked to multiple times during this discussion), the question is whether the grouping/set of cards itself is notable. So far that answer appears to be no, and so far no one asking for this article's preservation has brought forth evidence (in the form of multiple reliable sources) to show otherwise. To metaphorically illustrate what I'm saying: We have an article on the game Monopoly, as the game itself is relevant. But, we do not have a list of Monopoly property, chance, or community chest cards, since those sets are not independently notable from the game and do not have an independent (from the game) parent article. As many others have said, this is probably perfect material for Wikia... and if it's not there already it should be. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.