Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set

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--Tone 14:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set[edit]

This is an extremely trivial list that violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is absolutely no encyclopedic use to it, and there are plenty of fan guides available out there to be added to an external link section. TTN (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT as well, I'd say. Delete. --Izno (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but list external links on relevant article (not forgetting to mention the person who added them to this list in the edit summary). This is typically something better covered by fansite, also, aren't those images copyrighted? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have all just been uploaded today. MuZemike (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, game guide material which has no place here at wikipedia, as said above it is better suited to a fansite. Salavat (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, worth it. To be helpful, why don't you provide some actual ways on how to improve this article. Rather than vague problems with it. Like if I say I have a problem with you because your stinky. Okay, so that's the problem, what's the solution but. Obviously, in this example; higher frequency of showers, increased use of deodorant, more frequent wash cycles and to stop sharting. That's how you be helpful. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a reason to keep addressing the concerns of the nominator. What makes the list different from GUIDEY material? What makes it different from IINFO material? From what we can see, nothing. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sponge cake article says, whats in a sponge cake; "flour (usually wheat flour), sugar, and eggs, sometimes leavened with baking powder"

This article says whats in the base set of PTCG. It doest NOT say anything like what makes a good deck, pictures of each card (guidey stuff). And if you would give the article more time it would prosper and become a much better article, and moved to less of a list article. Also for future commenters, please read and awnser my original comment IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just silly listcruft. There's no solution, because the list isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. If there was, someone would have told you. And honestly, the logic that a list of cards about a video game is the same as listing what was in a significant, real-world food is silly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fool Its not a video game fool, its a fictional universe. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being uncivil is hardly a way to get your point across here. The basic issue is -- can you show that this page isn't overly specific for the criteria of Wikipedia, which aims to be a general encyclopedia, not a detailing of everything in a fictional universe. Why it is 'worth it'? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the pokemon fictional universe any different from the Christianity fictional universe, if that fictional universe gets so many pages, then surely pokemon does to.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Christian "fictional universe" is considered by more than a quarter of the Earth to be real, and has been around for more than 2000 years.

And it has more reliable secondary out-of-universe sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – listcruft, fails WP:NOT#INFO. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God And what would you guys say about an article that talks about the theme decks for each set. Like all in one article. Pokemon Trading Card Game Theme Decks or something?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mere listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crufty or not, there's no out of universe references indicating the notability of this set. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm assuming this is listcruft since I can hardly make heads or tails of what the list is trying to display. We don't have lists of every baseball card ever made in a given set and baseball players exist in our universe. The card game may be notable in itself, but a comprehensive list of every card in the series violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for this kind of stuff. Themfromspace (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2008 (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.