Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information

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 Onoes, keep card, blah blah blah.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information

Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another cluttered list of anime information. This fancruft needs to end. Things like theme song listings are certainly better for a fan wiki instead. RobJ1981 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete very non-encyclopedic. Belongs on a fan site. Seems to fall in the WP:NOT#IINFO criteria. Maybe WP:NOT needs a new category called "Episode guide" in addition to "Travel guide". --JJLatWiki 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MARromance (talk • contribs).
• Keep Part of an article series, but I don't see any particular policy problems with the list nor does the nominator cite any but uses an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rational instead. The beginning of the list could use some cleanup and reorganization. I also don't see how WP:NOT#INFO would apply here as we have a number of other episode lists that are currently Featured Lists. --Farix (Talk) 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:NOT#IINFO specifies "Plot summaries" which account for the bulk of the article. --JJLatWiki 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The bulk of the article is just the episode list. Only a small portion of the article is "plot summaries". The Splendiferous Gegiford 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That does happen from time to time, but that's a case where we should trim the plot summary, rather than delete the list itself. The list is there for real world things, like dates, involved people, noting the units/segments the fiction was released in, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:NOT#IINFO prohibition is against articles that are solely a summary of the plot with no real-world context or sourced analysis. Since other episode information is provided for real-world context and the summaries are very brief, it doesn't fall afoul of WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep media and release information is encyclopedic, and the title refers to the theme songs and episode lists and such. It's better to have it in one place than in a bunch of different ones. JuJube 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, media information like this is pretty well grounded and not in the whole "zomg, fanboy/girl" territory. Granted we should keep an eye on lists for works of fiction, that doesn't mean ban any lists. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Yu-Gi-Oh! seems to be notable, so a listing like this is permissible, but it does not appear to have a good source at this time. Could an independent reliable and verifiable source for the info be added to the article? How do the editors obtain the info provided? Edison 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above points. The Splendiferous Gegiford 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Synopses and plot summaries should not be articles. They are just trivia.-MsHyde 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Additional reasons for deletion: WP:NOTE - I don't see any evidence that the subject, "Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information", has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This is just minutiae that lets fans avoid paying for and maintaining there own blog/host account. --JJLatWiki 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reaching there. As I said above, this article is part of an article series on Yu-Gi-Oh!, which is undeniably notable. If the main topic is notable, then so are the subtopics. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It does not follow that all subtopics of a notable topic are automatically notable. Can you cite multiple, non-trivial published works that refer to "Yu-Gi-Oh! media and release information"? The article is a repository of miscellaneous trivia and advertising about Yu-Gi-Oh! --JJLatWiki 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense. How can a series be notable, but at the same time not notable? --Farix (Talk) 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above reasons. Mathmo ^Talk 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As noted above, there appear to be no published sources on "media and release information for Yu-Gi-Oh!", which means that the subject amounts ot a novel synthesis. Plus, why do we have more words devoted to Yu-Gi-Oh! than we do to the age of enlightenment? I know which is more important by any objective measure. This goes beyond picking the low-hanging fruit and into gathering windfalls. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Age of Enlightenment" is not the subject of this debate. If you feel another article on Wikipedia deserves to be expanded, do it. Deeming one subject more important than other is another fallicious WP:ILIKEIT-style argument. The anime publication Newtype and other have featured various apects of thise series, including episode summaries and dvd release information. These articles can be cleaned-up to be well-written, sourced and featured lists. (i.e. List of RahXephon media) --Kunzite 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that WP:OTHERTHINGSAREMOREIMPORTANT argument is a good candidate for WP:ATA. --Farix (Talk) 02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per List of RahXephon media and other featured media lists. They can be sourced. They can be pretty. These things are moved to secondary pages because of readability size limits. Try using clean-up tags. --Kunzite 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep we have pages like these to keep the info off the main article. There is no policy banning these lists as well, a lot have FL status. (Note: Nominator seems to be listing any list he can find for deletion. [1])--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:34, 11 February 2007 (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.