This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 11:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

This may as well stand for all the pages I nominated yesterday, for the following reasons:

1. The cards that these are written about are hardly notable. Many are not even famous within the Yu-Gi-Oh! community.
2. The old "if every card had an article..." line holds true here.
3. These articles have all been created by the same IP address. If several people made them, I could possibly accept it, but this person (or small group) have created all of these short, uninformative articles.
4. The XYZ Series already has its own article, so the following pages may as well be merged with it:
   • X-Head Cannon
   • XY-Dragon Cannon
   • XYZ-Dragon Cannon
   • XZ-Tank Cannon
   • Y-Dragon Head
   • YZ-Tank Dragon
   • Z-Metal Tank
5. An article already exists for each set, so we could always merge some of the more useful content into those articles, eg 7 Colored Fish into Metal Raiders.
6. The creator appears to be somewhat biased towards WATER- and FIRE-type monsters. If these articles remain, there should at least be an even spread over the wide variety cards that could possess their own article.
7. And finally, is it likely that Yu-Gi-Oh! fans will come to an encyclopedia of all places to find information on individual cards? If they are, should we begin reviewing cards? This appears to be the direction in which we are heading, if we do not act.

I made those articles and I am willing to talk about the problem. Maybe we could work things out so it benefits both of us.

Talk then; I have laid out my point of view. And you should really create an account if you embark on such a courageous project. Setokaiba 07:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your idea about reviewing cards would be interesting.

<Falls over backwards in a very animé-style way.> Setokaiba 17:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we start reviewing cards?

• Strong delete for this, and all other individual weapons in Yu-Gi-Oh (or any other anime) that have their own articles. It's fancruft, I tell you. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

• Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:49 (UTC)

• Delete --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable fancruft. I dunno how Yu-Gi-Oh! cards work, but if this thing belongs in any sort of series of cards, can't you just merge it in? Individual cards do NOT need their own articles. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone wants to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Duel Monsters to go with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex. That probably wouldn't work because there are over 1000 Duel Monsters cards and only 386 Pokemon.--pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, that's not a bad idea. DrachenFyre 01:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is neither a TCG card database nor a place for card reviews. Only cards that contribute majorly to the Yu-Gi-Oh! storyline deserve their own articles. Riddle | Talk 07:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual cards are not notable.  Grue  19:13, 14 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.