Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cards in Dinosaur King

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cards in Dinosaur King[edit]

Non-notable list of every card in the Dinosaur King card game. Fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:N, WP:LISTCRUFT. No salvageable content for a merge into the Dinosaur King article, which already has an adequate (does need cleanup though) description of the card game. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft and non-notable trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and because Wikipedia is not a game guide Collectonian (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is an article about an arcade game. Isn't there a deletion page for the CVG project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.95.231 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur King is a card game, not an arcade game, and an anime series is based on the card game, hence it also being relevant to the anime project. Collectonian (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - was just creating it to clean up the Dinosaur King article. Simply south (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of shoving deletable material to other articles, the deletable material should be removed. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and then redirect to prevent recreation WhisperToMe (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unpack that a little? How does a redirect prevent someone from recreating it? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming they either meant "protect to prevent recreation", or was thinking of a protected redirect. Delete; this isn't notable enough, and there's not much point in a redirect. Articles aren't usually protected from recreation unless there have been problems; if it were to be, a redirect wouldn't be necessary to protect it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 10 April 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.