Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 39 Clues 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The 39 Clues Cards

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

Game guide. Far too detailed for an encyclopedia. Belongs in its own wiki. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: The cards are a big part of The 39 Clues series. Every 39 clues book has its own article, so why can't the cards have their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag97 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep "far too detailed" is not a reason to delete, but it perhaps could be a reason to split the article into even more articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep These cards are a big part of The 39 Clues series. So it's either we merge it to the main article (that will make that page VERY big), or keep this article. Even if we move it to the main article, someone will put  another  tag that it may need to move to another new article. Albertdaniel222 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article currently is poor and not sourced with RSes. But  would seem to indicate that there are RSes out there for this CCG. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any reason to delete this. Ohms law (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing notable about the individual cards and all the minor details about them. This article is to close to being a game guide. All this information could be easily edited of the intense amount of detail and added to the 39 Clues article which also needs massive trimming.  Ridernyc (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an argument to keep and copy edit the article(s) rather then to delete it/them, though. Ω (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The list of cards might need to go, I agree... Hobit (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2009 (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.