Deletion of List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards

Comment: Overly detailed and excessively long list. "Wikipedia is not a rulebook" seems an appropriate way to interpret Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal. The article is heavy on trivia and |original research but light on |reliable sources, and is creeping into  territory as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: per , , , . The nearest I found to a source addressing the group or set itself was http://www.pojo.com/yu-gi-oh/FeaturedWriters/Ryoga/index.shtml. That's not . As the content doesn't seem to attributable to reliable sources, even a merge isn't worth considering. Is all the info already included http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page on wikia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NOTDIR||WP:V||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The topic is notable per , being documented in detail in sources such as ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o7wzTh3N_soC&pg=PA132 Trading Card Games for Dummies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: My argument is much simpler in that the list has a fair amount of |original research and the references that are provided are broken or do not provide the |verifiability that is needed for any article... list or not.  There are no inline citations or |reliable sources.  The companys that provide the cards, media and the Wikia (that already exists) cannot be used as the sources that hold this list up to Wikipedia standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:FICT is an essay.  The cards themselves are not notable.  I don't see any evidence that this satisfies , and all the sources are primary.  Wikia was made for this sort of article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: for lack of notability and inadequate sourcing. While some cards may have been covered in reliable third-party sources, the great majority has not been, at least not to an extent that would support most of the content of the article, as can be seen from the meagre and often unreliable references. And it's the potential for |verifying article content, quite lacking here it seems, that's behind our sourcing-based concept of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: the game is notable, a list of cards is simply not encyclopedic and fails #INFO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The question here is not whether each individual card is notable (some appear to be), nor is it whether the game itself is notable (it clearly is). Per  (which has been incorrectly interpreted and linked to multiple times during this discussion), the question is whether the grouping/set of cards ''itself'' is notable. So far that answer appears to be no, and so far no one asking for this article's preservation has brought forth evidence (in the form of multiple |reliable sources) to show otherwise. To metaphorically illustrate what I'm saying: We have an article on the game Monopoly (game)|Monopoly, as the game ''itself'' is relevant. But, we ''do not'' have a list of Monopoly property, chance, or community chest cards, since those sets are not independently notable from the game and do not have an independent (from the game) parent article. As many others have said, this is probably perfect material for Wikia... and if it's not there already it should be. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:RS)

Comment: largely per . The article is also absurdly long and should be split into sub articles. If that were to be done I think it would be easy to see that the list(s) does not stand up to scrutiny
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)