Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trading card sets

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. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of trading card sets

It is a list that will never be complete or accurate. It is basically a waste of space, and it most likely will only wind up listing things primarily from North America. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and should be deleted as soon as possible. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because it was suggested here. Libro0 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few sources. Also, I took this as a list for something like Magic: The Gathering --Numyht (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion was to have these sets linked to their detailed description where the actual sources are. The sources can be added on this page also as can Magic: The Gathering. Besides it is a brand new page and as such is a work in progress and hasn't had its own proper discussion yet. Being on AfD is a bit premature. Libro0 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the nominator and the starter of the article being engaged in an epic battle, this article is something that should have never been s

tarted in the first place. It violates What Wikipedia is not, it is something that would never be complete and if it was complete it would be absurdly long. There is a reason that there is a policy against articles like this. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article can be appropriately subdivided in a similar manner to articles such as History of Egypt. Furthermore it can be as complete and accurate as source information will allow. Incompleteness and inaccuracy arise only from neglect and vandalism. Libro0 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that this article could ever be complete or not violate the established guidelines for article creation. Please see What Wikipedia is not. This is nothing like the History of Egypt. This is just a list better served by having articles in categories. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the list article can never be completed then neither will the main articles they link to. It has been debated that no article is ever really 'complete', so that point is irrelevant. Additionally, I do not see where this violates anything under What Wikipedia is not. Libro0 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong as always Libro0! You Ms. Wikipedia Policy Expert have never read this which says:

Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See [[new list]] link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists.

Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list).

Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.

Can you explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the link I provided above you could ask Mike92591 yourself why he suggested the list. I did read Wikipedia:Lists and it also states as I mentioned earlier that subdividing it could be helpful. But to answer your question, I would say culturally it is a popular hobby, economically it is a lucrative business even in the secondary market, and historically it goes as far back as the 1870's. It also transcends several venues: consumables from tobacco to candy, sports from baseball to hockey, nations from UK to Japan ... Libro0 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do everything some random person on the internet tells you to do? You seemed to read the thing, but not comprehend it. Again, can you answer why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge? You have not answered the question. It is just a list of god dammed crap without any context or anything. It violates policy and should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Why do you create such things? Do you do it for the attention? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you two stop bickering? How much of the community's time have you wasted with your back and forth. The two of you should just be banned. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Call it what you will but I have made valid arguments in favor of the article without attacking anyone. Please reread everything above carefully. Libro0 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is also useful for Navigation and Development. See Wikipedia:Lists. Libro0 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not explained how this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Personal attacks removed by either way Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to close this as no consensus as AFD isn't the place to settle disputes by AFDing each other articles, after looking at the article, this is a clear cut Delete. Perfect violation of WP:NOT#INFO, just lists "trading card" sets, a term that is too broad and unmaintainable (there are many thousands if you are going though the guidelines of the list). Secret ^account 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unmaintainable list. A ni Mate 02:34, 14 November 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.