Talk:Tsareena ex (TCG): Difference between revisions
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Sure it can be a competitive deck later, but creating this article while Tsaarena is still in the Standard format in the first place is counting the eggs before they hatch. (This also goes for articles of current competitive decks, as you're going to create them with a bias of the current meta.) [[User:Pipefan|Pipefan]] ([[User talk:Pipefan|talk]]) 13:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | Sure it can be a competitive deck later, but creating this article while Tsaarena is still in the Standard format in the first place is counting the eggs before they hatch. (This also goes for articles of current competitive decks, as you're going to create them with a bias of the current meta.) [[User:Pipefan|Pipefan]] ([[User talk:Pipefan|talk]]) 13:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
: I also see you there, pending United Wings article. [[User:Pipefan|Pipefan]] ([[User talk:Pipefan|talk]]) 13:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | : I also see you there, pending United Wings article. [[User:Pipefan|Pipefan]] ([[User talk:Pipefan|talk]]) 13:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
::I created it because I do believe it's a meta deck archetype, though not top-tier, which is shown by a lack of tournament usage. I would like for this not to be deleted entirely, but could be moved back into my user space, at least temporarily. --'''[[User:Bfdifan2006|<span style="background:-webkit-linear-gradient(left,#f83,#3fa);-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Bfdifan2006</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Bfdifan2006|talk]]) 23:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:43, 21 January 2024
Deletion?
I don't think this list is noteworthy for an article; you may sometimes see it in TCG Live and the internet, but Tsaarena has literally no tournament usage (unless you're focusing on it as a budget deck) and YouTubers have a financial incentive to display any kind of deck even if it's not good. While there are no hard criterias for archetype articles I believe including "meme decks" is opening a can of worms for any list you see out there as a page.
Sure it can be a competitive deck later, but creating this article while Tsaarena is still in the Standard format in the first place is counting the eggs before they hatch. (This also goes for articles of current competitive decks, as you're going to create them with a bias of the current meta.) Pipefan (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also see you there, pending United Wings article. Pipefan (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I created it because I do believe it's a meta deck archetype, though not top-tier, which is shown by a lack of tournament usage. I would like for this not to be deleted entirely, but could be moved back into my user space, at least temporarily. --Bfdifan2006 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
