Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading 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. Krakatoa Katie  02:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Just a list of cards that fail WP:N and WP:NOT Delete Secret account 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft. This could be useful as a section of the actual Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG page, but otherwise it's totally NN as a standalone article Doc Strange (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - is just a list unencyclopedic that fails WP:N. Macy's123 (review me) 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:N and is fancruft. Poeloq (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

* WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh! has been notified of this debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Dear goodness - List of Fan Cruft. Spawn Man Review Me! 03:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; per all users above. -- Astroview 120  mm  03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable, fancruft, no reason to have an article on this. Oysterguitarist 04:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, fancruft. About as notable as List of Dodge Ram (Truck) Vehicle Identification Numbers for 1998 (what do you mean that article doesn't exist?) — BQZip01 —  talk 06:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yu-Gi-Oh and its associated features is quite notable. Even Google Scholar has some good hits.  This article could easily be sourced to magazines like Scrye and Inquest that cover this stuff in English.  And I suppose that there will be even more sources in Japanese but that is beyond me.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None of them talks about this topic, you did the google search wrong, WP:NOTINHERITED anyways Secret account 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added 3 citations including a report in the New York Times which says that a riot was caused by the lack of such special edition cards. The not-notable comments here seem founded in ignorance or prejudice - blatant cruftcruft. Yu-gi-oh has been a fixture in the hobby press for years now and its sales and penetration are easily enough to make it notable in mainstream terms too. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Still WP:NOTINHERITED, the first source is about Yu-Gi-Oh in general, the third source is about movie cards, the second source is a pr release. It neeed to talk about completely the cards there in general, I admit though fancruft isn't a good reasoning. Secret account 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is NOT Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. Zerokitsune (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So? The existence of secondary sources for this is evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources again doesn't really talk about promotional cards Secret account 15:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wiki is not Wikia. I don't want a list of cards without complete information about cards. It's useless. Collectors and Yu-Gi-Oh fans goes to Wikia, not Wikipedia. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Along with being fancruft, this list looks somewhat repetitive. Just because it has several sources doesn't mean anything. It doesn't meet notability standards. ― LADY GALAXY 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it may well be that this list is notable, but neither the provided sources or anything else I could find leads me to believe that sources will be found. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and all the folks just saying "fancruft" should be ignored IMO. That's not a valid reason/policy or anything. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? See Fancruft. Just because the term sounds funny doesn't mean it's not "valid". ― LADY GALAXY 17:09, 19 January 2008 (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.