Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokemon Diamond And Pearl 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 keep. John254 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Diamond And Pearl Cards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a list, directory, source of original research or a crystal ball. This article covers all of these, and also contains unnecessary information (as such information can be found in the right places, such as Bulbapedia, and much better quality). Cipher (Talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a hugely popular subject, as can been seen by the large number of edits to the article in recent months, as well as the thousands of Google hits it gets. Surely these two factors make the subject a notable topic for Wikipedia? Having said that, it could really do with a very good clean up. --Seahamlass (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a Pokemon person, but there seem to be plenty of relevant sources
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/27pokemon.html?pagewanted=all
 * http://www.playthings.com/article/CA6449264.html
 * http://www.gazette.com/articles/pok%C3%A9mon_22169___article.html/game_blue.html
 * http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Pokemon+Diamond+And+Pearl+Cards&um=1&sa=N&start=10 Hobit (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - given the huge number of articles on minor anime and so forth, this hugely popular game deserves articles. Cinnamon colbert (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sigh; as much as I dislike the game, it is hugely popular and should have an article.  King Pickle (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It already has two which are much more in-depth and necessary, here and here. Cipher (Talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, but given the sales of each set, not to mention the (apparent) details and references, I think each set is more than notable enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as said above, but clean the article up some. Izzy007 Talk 17:22, 27 March 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.