Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broodstar (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was redirect to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering; more information can be moved Broodstar to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering by recovering it from history (this is a regular editing decision) - Liberatore(T) 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broodstar (2nd nomination)

The first nomination was closed with a result of merge into Creatures of Magic: The Gathering...after apparently only three votes. Also, apparently, the page was never merged. I'm relisting here, and unlike the first nominator, I'm voting delete because individual CCG cards aren't notable enough for their own page. -- Grev 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. SorryGuy 03:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• I just merged it, so Delete. — AKADriver ☎ 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per AKADriver. RMG 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: if content has been merged the page must be made into a redirect to preserve attribution under the GFDL. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, individual MTG cards are not notable. I wouldn't even consider popular deck builds to qualify for individual articles... though it is interesting there is no mention of such seminal decks as Prosperous Bloom, red/white weenie, etc. at Magic: The Gathering.--Isotope23 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Kjkolb. --Ginkgo100 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article, or add more info to the section at Creatures of Magic: the Gathering. Only a small part of the article is actually in that section. VDZ 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect for GFDL compliance. Fagstein 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since it seems to me that with the thousands of creatures in the game, trying to cram them all into one article doesn't sound reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 2 May 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.