Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets

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. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a list of hundreds of Yu-Gi-Oh CCG releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - List of Magic: The Gathering sets also exists. Wikipedia has many such lists. It is not a list of "loosely associated topics." TranquilHope (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Except List of Magic: The Gathering sets contains many sets that have further details, this merely contains names, serial numbers, and release dates. I don't know if some of the sets here should have additional content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should definitely have more content. I was going to add more myself, but I was busy. Even if it doesn't have more content, it would still suffice as a list. TranquilHope (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While few individual cards in any TCG are notable, sets are blocks released at once, and tend to attract commentary, establish timelines, eras in the "history" of the (meta-)game, and the like. Not even responding to notability, since the entire nomination rests on NOT. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article doesn't currently rely on good secondary sources, Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game has enough that notability is not a concern of mine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me! I so much like it when AfDs are focused on one issue, rather than a shotgun approach. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't think this falls under any of the specified criteria. Nuke (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know I'm swimming up stream here but NOTACATALOG exists for exactly this, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a reason to keep. Wikipedia does not exist to document product cataloges, especailly when it's literally taken whole cloth from the corporate website. This is a prime candidate for trans-wiki to one of the numerous wikis dedicated to this sort of thing. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment the majority of the votes are for Keep. However, I am obliged to observe that no policy or guidelines are cited by the Keep votes while those favoring deletion do cite guidelines. In short, I am unimpressed by the rationals presented thus far for Keeping the article and am thus relisting to see if those arguments can be improved or more delete votes appear. See also WP:NOTAVOTE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with power~enwiki's original rationale (WP:NOTCATALOG). Also I agree with LargelyRecyclable - this could just be a list pulled from the product website. The difference with List of Magic: The Gathering sets is that it tells much more of a story, and why sets themselves are notable, instead of just a list of products. I'm a big fan of board/card games (not Yu-Gi-Oh! specifically), but don't think we need this page to give a good encyclopedic representation of this particular game. = paul2520 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines, and plenty of evidence of satisfying WP:What Wikipedia is not. This kind of thing is suitable for a wiki for game fans and the like, but not for a general encyclopaedia.Breaking sticks (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG; an indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2017 (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.