Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons Roar structure deck

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 Delete. Enochlau 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like poorly written Yu-Gi-Cruft. Delete — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Keep an eye out for removal of the {{afd}} notice by the article's author [1]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:This has happened more than once. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 21:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep remove the NNPOV bit about it being the "worst" of the decks, and I see no reason why it isn't notable. Stupid, yes, but notable nonetheless. wikipediatrix 21:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How does a list of cards, out of context, fit? On top of that, this information would be available elsewhere, in more appropriate forums (like, say, ude's website..?) D.valued 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruft. Cruft. Cruft. Reyk 22:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Meaningless to newcomers. --Apostrophe 06:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per D.valued. Stifle 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing but a useless list of cards. 132.162.213.109 01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-encyclopædic fancruft. On a fan site, maybe, but not on Wikipædia

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.