Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Teams from King of Fighters

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:20Z

List of Teams from King of Fighters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Listcruft. Additionally, it is redundant since the characters for each game in the King of Fighters series are already organized by their teams in the individual games' articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article specifies that this information is available, more or less in its entirety, elsewhere. That merits an external link from the main King of Fighters, but not a separate article. Charlie 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we where to follow that way of thinking, we could just close down Wikipedia all together. Deleting something because the information can be found elsewhere is not good deletion reason. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that's true. My argument is that redundant information ought not be included, especially when that information is not really important enough to merit its own article. Charlie 23:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe the redundancy is explained in the nomination: the team lists are already displayed on the respective articles. --Scottie theNerd 05:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Scottie theNerd 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as nominator. Combination 13:31, 22 December 2006 (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.