Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 39 Clues Cards (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 39 Clues Cards[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, This subject can be adequately covered in the main article on the book series. Contested redirect to the book series. RadioFan (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very popular topic, and if deleted it would be sure to be recreated, there are many web pages on this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article Adding an external link to the main article pointing to one of those web pages would be a better option.--RadioFan (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree with Graeme but this article has a lot of problems, and it definitely has a lot of DIRECTORY/Manual material in it. It's probably a valid content fork though of the primary article, which appears to be undergoing a revamping right now. I'd say if it was cut down to encyclopedia appropriate content, and still had content, then it should survive a renomination; but if not, it should be merged back into the main. Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The last AfD focused on the fact it needed cleanup too; that was back in June. If nobody is going to cut down this content to make it usable (I certainly know nothing about this topic) that fact sways me towards wanting to delete it, notwithstanding my statements above. Shadowjams (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it should be renamed to List of 39 Clues Cards and put it in WP:list form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article, minus the lists of cards. The cards can presumably be used as sources for character articles but there's no more reason to list them all than there is for listing every Magic: The Gathering card. The "how-to" aspects can later be cleaned from the main article. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this. Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Graeme. I also agree with Shadowjams that we need to cut down on non-encyclopedic content. Airplaneman ✈ 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge seems reasonable but only the encyclopedic content, that which can be sourced somewhere other than primary sources. The tables of cards all appear tobe original research and violate WP:NOT#DIR.--RadioFan (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know some of the card tables at least are sourced (primary sources, but sourced nonetheless), but yes, most of that can go. Then again, I'd say the same about List of Pokémon... VernoWhitney (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (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.