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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Big League Challenge Materials[edit]

Just a list of details of a non-notable set of cards, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, prod removed, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. That's precisely what this is. --Core desat 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of informations. Daniel5127 | Talk 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I shall make this short, because my reasons should be self explanitory. This is not a random baseball card set posted on Wikipedia. This set, is in fact, the first of its kind. It was the first set where in every pack of cards the owner would recieve a limited edition graded card. This was a major moment in card collecting history. Not only that, it was nearly impossible for anyone to find out what the complete set contained. I spent years researching this, and I finally learned of the entire set's contents. Therefore, since I was already writing a Wikipedia page about the set, I figured I would release the entire sets contents to the world, bringing a meaning to my research. Before deciding to delete any Wikipage that does not interest you, I suggest that you at least READ THE ARTICLE to find out why it is here in the first place. Although not long, it has provided information that I have recieved some emails that thanked me for finally releasing the article. This is, in essence, no different that the pointless deletion of the Donruss page awhile back. Please, look at it now, its a completely stripped down page from what It used to be. Wikipedia isn't just about getting medals for clearing up wasted space, its actually an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. Thank you. IBHMC 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes wikipedia is a encyclopedia, but this isn't the type of info that is needed in this site. We aren't beckett, people looking for a list of cards from that set will look at the beckett or the baseball reference wiki first rather than here. I'm a long time collector of thousands of sports cards and I could name 20 sets that are more important than this, 1952 Topps, and 2003-04 Exquite collection comes to mind. The set was just some bonus cards that a fan could get in the all-star game, I got several of the cards in my collection, nothing special. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, because I am the person who researched this for Beckett, along with Rich Klein (I'm sure you've heard of him if you read Beckett). There is no question that there are more important sets than this, but it is notable nonetheless. How about I combine this article into another baseball article, or create one devoted only to notable sets? That way the encyclopedia can be expanded with other sets included, not just 1 - there's no Wikipedia rule that says articles can't be long. Look, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I just wanted to contribute something useful that I could expand on further as time went on. I will also remove the checklist (if thats the only way I can save my article). I only request to mave my page preserved long ebough for me to make the changes (another day or two) because I am quite busy with work now. I appreciate your consideration of my offer.IBHMC 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an FYI, there were 2 versions of the set, one given away at the All star game, another sold in a gold package.* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IBHMC (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 March 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.