Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cards in Sonic Rivals

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. (aeropagitica) 21:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cards in Sonic Rivals

Prod removed by anon saying "Does not violate any of Wikipedia's rules." which is actually extremely amusing to me. Anyway, this article fails

WP:NOT#IINFO in a big way. A really big way. Axem Titanium 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, pointless cruft. And I've preemptively burned the "But people have put a lot of work into this article, you just don't like them!" strawman, so please don't try it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain MORE on why the article has been put up for deletion? Just so we can be more specific in the tag on the page. Knuckles sonic8 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a listing of cards in a game, with no encyclopedic value. Nobody but people who are playing the game would ever want to know this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
top 00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as Wikipedia is
not a collection of indiscriminate information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per everyone except Knuckles sonic8.
Danny Lilithborne 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no value to anyone who isn't playing the game, so it belongs on a gaming wiki. Koweja 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into the main article. The rest can be deleted. Just H 05:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per
WP:NOT. Nothing can be salvaged from this article; it's just a list of all the cards. --Scottie theNerd 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Oh the
indiscriminate horror! The Kinslayer 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep' - There is nothing indiscriminate about this list. It is not put together haphazardly, and it has a very clear purpose. --
Pinkkeith 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep, to be useful for anyone trying to find all the cards. (I.E. a game guide.) The Kinslayer 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the definition of a
Pinkkeith 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
What, did you mean this bit? 'The exact meaning of a "strategy guide" these days is very vague' The Kinslayer 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote is out of context, since you didn't quote the entire sentence. It continues: "as most could be easily ranked as "walkthroughs" or "hint collections"." The editor was trying to say that strategy guides gives both a walkthough or a collection of hints. Yet, if you want to think this is a game guide you certainly are entitled to your own point of view. Yet, I beleive this is a just a collection of information and doesn't tell you how to play a game to completion. --
Pinkkeith 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

No, but it gives you details on a part of the game you would have to find by yourself otherwise. Lists like this are essential parts of strategy guides. They tell you what you have, what you have missed and how many there are in total. A quick thumb through a couple of strategy guides I own reveal plenty of lists in all of them. Incuding lists of collectibles from many games. The Kinslayer 16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The major difference between this and your many strategy guides is that your guides show you how to find them. This is just a list of the cards found in the game. --
Pinkkeith 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, that would be the maps that tell me that. The list consists of just the card and box for checking off when you collect it. The Kinslayer 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be forgetting that a list of cards does not give any information to anyone except those who are already playing the game, which can mean that it may be considered a game guide, but more importantly, that only a fraction of a fraction of the population would find this page remotely informative. Axem Titanium 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye; the list is obviously useful, but it is not within the scope of information that Wikipedia is interested in, and is the sort of the content that would belong in a game guide. --Scottie theNerd 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of every card is more appropriate for a game manual than a general knowledge encyclopedia. -- Whpq 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTGAMEFAQS :P --- RockMFR 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list. We have plenty of lists. It doesn't even have links to anything that isn't already linked by a list of Sonic characters. -Ryanbomber 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged It was already in the Rivals article, and split for length reasons. I have moved all of the data back to the Rivals article, and you lot can do whatever with the page.GrandMasterGalvatron 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are misunderstanding the point of this AfD. The information on this article is inappropriate for all of Wikipedia since it is only useful to such a small denomination of people and fails
  WP:NOT#IINFO. I've gone ahead and removed it from the Sonic Rivals article since it provides nothing to the general reader. Axem Titanium 01:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Well, find somewhere for it to go, and then you'll have something. I'm actually the one who mainly composed that list and it took a lot of time I could have put elsewhere. So, any sugesstions on where it can be placed? GrandMasterGalvatron 01:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is now, the only place I can think of is userspace (someplace like User:Grandmastergalvatron/Cards in Sonic Rivals). This is because the info itself does not belong on Wikipedia. Actually, if you want to flesh it out a little more, I'm sure GameFAQs would be happy to accept it. Axem Titanium 01:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well...I suppose that can work. It could still be linked to from the article....correct?GrandMasterGalvatron 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, no. That's why I suggested that GameFAQs would be a better host for your work. Axem Titanium 02:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Ok. Humor me...why would it fail to qualify as an external link or even a reference? After all Some of the information from those cards is being used as a reference for other articles. For example, the previously publicly unnamed Heroes variant of
  Metal Sonic was revealed through these very cards to be called "Neo Metal Sonic".GrandMasterGalvatron 02:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - It wouldn't be an external link since it isn't a link to an external site (ie not Wikipedia). Of course, a reference is completely fine. Just use the {{cite video game}} template to cite information from the game. The information doesn't have to be available on Wikipedia to cite it. In the case of "Neo Metal Sonic", just cite the video game and it'll be fine, regardless of whether the article exists or not. Axem Titanium 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No no, I mean if the data was hosted elsewhere, could it be linked to from the article? In this case, I could have it posted on GameFAQs or some other joint, and place a link within the article.GrandMasterGalvatron 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, that's avoided because it still doesn't improve the article per
  WP:EL. People who are interested will search for it themselves. There is a {{GameFAQs}} template to link the the GameFAQs page though. Axem Titanium 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- With is posted nowhere, you would rather have all of the data lost?GrandMasterGalvatron 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encylopedia, not a fan site. It's Completely irrelevant. I'm amazed there's actually this much discussion. --DurinsBane87 12:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 18:58, 25 December 2006 (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.