Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos orb

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 redirect to Unlimited (Magic: The Gathering), with possibility of merging. JPD (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos orb

Individual Magic cards, even important/popular ones, are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn and other precedents. Andrew Levine 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Beta (Magic: the Gathering), it's already mentioned there, perhaps merging if someone desires. WilyD 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Unlimited. Comment. I don't think the machinery of AfD was even necessary here; I'd already dropped a "Merge to" with a single card AfD cited, and was going to simply redirect it (possibly pulling some material along with?) very soon anyway. If any future single-card articles are seen (barring single-cards so famous/breaking that they are notable), they can probably also be quietly redirected without need to trouble AfD. SnowFire 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Tap 4BU and Delete, while I can go with a redirect on a deck build that was used reasonably frequently in tournament play, I don't see any reason for a redirect on an individual card. The article is also completely unsourced and not verified, which is enough to push it into deletion territory in my book.--Isotope23 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect I think that is a great idea to just redirect these cards as they are obviously something ppl will search for. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I disagree with the nom, and note the lack of binding decisions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Unlimited, merging content if appropriate. It's a historically iimportant Magic card, but interesting mostly in context of overall history of the game. Unlimited achieves that. Maestlin 22:32, 29 August 2006 (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.