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 Onoes! You've fallen for my keep card!. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Yet another cluttered and crufty anime list. RobJ1981 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very non-encyclopedic. Belongs on a fan site. Seems to fall in the WP:NOT#IINFO criteria. Maybe WP:NOT needs a new category called "Episode guide" in addition to "Travel guide". --JJLatWiki 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep -

(The above comment was added by User:MARromance) --MasterA113 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Part of an article series, but I don't see any particular policy problems with the list nor does the nominator cite any but uses an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rational instead. The episode lists would benefit by switching the the ((Japanese episode list)) template. I also don't see how WP:NOT#INFO would apply here as we have a number of other episode lists that are currently Featured Lists. --Farix (Talk) 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For the reasons mentioned by other users in favour of keeping the article. It's a list of episodes, which many series also happen to have (eg. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, List of InuYasha episodes, etc.) --Benten 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I don't expect it to be. Drake Clawfang 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep media and release information is encyclopedic, and the title refers to the theme songs and episode lists and such. It's better to have it in one place than in a bunch of different ones. JuJube 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just trivia.
• Keep, media information like this is pretty well grounded and not in the whole "zomg, fanboy/girl" territory. Granted we should keep an eye on lists for works of fiction, that doesn't mean ban any lists. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is on TV in multiple countries, so the series is notable. This list appears to be sourced. Less objectional than articles for every character and every episode. Edison 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A funny side note, that's one reason I like these lists, they can be an alternative to individual episode articles. Ironically, some lists lead to that.. You win some, you lose some. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on some of the nominators previous comments, I think he is trying to set a president here with these nominations. --Farix (Talk) 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This is not encyclopedic in any way and wikipedia is not a place for media and upcoming information.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional reasons for deletion: WP:NOTE - I don't see any evidence that the subject, "Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information", has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This is just minutiae that lets fans avoid paying for and maintaining there own blog/host account. --JJLatWiki 17:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaching there. As I said above, this article is part of an article series on Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, which is undeniably notable. If the main topic is notable, then so are the subtopics. --Farix (Talk) 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media is the broken down units of the show itself. Much like individual books in a series. -- Ned Scott 18:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per List of RahXephon media and other featured media lists. They can be sourced. They can be pretty. These things are moved to secondary pages because of readability size limits. Try using clean-up tags. --Kunzite 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "it's a subtopic" aside. If anyone wants to make a subtopic in a separate article, that subtopic, not its parent, must pass WP:N on its own merits or be merged back into the notable topic. Toyota is notable. That does not mean my Toyota is notable or should be in an article. McDonald's is notable. That doesn't mean every individual restaurant should be in a separate article. If information is getting too thick in an article, but no subtopics are notable enough for an individual article, too much detail is getting provided. In this case, look to cut-not split. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That logic might fly with, say, individual articles for each listed item.. but a single list of items is very different. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep we have pages like these to keep the info off the main article. There is no policy banning these lists as well, a lot have FL status. (Note: Nominator seems to be listing any list he can find for deletion. [1])--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MasterA113 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So you choose to delete it because you don't like it? Because that is exactly what the nominator's rational is. But if you care to elaborate further as to why this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, please do so. Otherwise, your "per non" comment doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 12 February 2007 (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.