Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umezawa's Jitte
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --- Deville (Talk) 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Umezawa's Jitte
Individual Magic cards, even popular ones, are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering) and other precedents. Andrew Levine 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, as nominator you've already made your argument, posting delete per nom is very bad form. WilyD 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- By default, listing an article for deletion is not necessarily supporting its deletion; the purpose is to have a discussion, and if the nominator wants to include himself in the discussion, he can note his support for deletion. If the nominator wants to abstain, he can leave out the "delete" (as I have done before in AfDs where I wanted to start discussion on topics for which I had not been so sure that deletion was appropriate). Andrew Levine 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Actually, I thought the accepted convention was to treat the default as a delete - because the nominator usually provides an argument for deletion. ColourBurst 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen people write something like I'm in favour of deleting this article at the end of their nomination, to make the issue clear. But what the nominator's done here reads (on a quick parse) like "voting twice" - and I've definitely seen people being told off for similar behaviour in the past. WilyD 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- As you correctly pointed out, AfD is not a vote, so I don't see how it's even possible for someone to "vote twice." Andrew Levine 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen people write something like I'm in favour of deleting this article at the end of their nomination, to make the issue clear. But what the nominator's done here reads (on a quick parse) like "voting twice" - and I've definitely seen people being told off for similar behaviour in the past. WilyD 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Actually, I thought the accepted convention was to treat the default as a delete - because the nominator usually provides an argument for deletion. ColourBurst 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- By default, listing an article for deletion is not necessarily supporting its deletion; the purpose is to have a discussion, and if the nominator wants to include himself in the discussion, he can note his support for deletion. If the nominator wants to abstain, he can leave out the "delete" (as I have done before in AfDs where I wanted to start discussion on topics for which I had not been so sure that deletion was appropriate). Andrew Levine 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, as nominator you've already made your argument, posting delete per nom is very bad form. WilyD 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Betrayers of Kamigawa - merge if anyone's up to it, but it's already somewhat covered there WilyD 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not redirect, Betrayers of Kamigawa already has the card featured. ColourBurst 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The card is extremely prominate in the set, a reasonable search term and the term is (very) unlikely to be used to create an unrelated article - I can't think of any other rational for not making it a redirect - what am I missing? WilyD 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, jizzm resulted in a concensus for a redirect to Arab Nights. WilyD 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons I laid out in the Chaos Orb AfD... though at least this article is sourced.--Isotope23 16:22, 28 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.
