Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar: The Last Airbender Trading Card Game


 * 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   redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender. No consensus to delete. Closing as "redirect" with no prejudice against reversion. Consider this a "keep" close with an editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender Trading Card Game

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Un-notable article with no citations to establish notability; written in a completely in-universe manner, describing only the game rules but nothing else. haha169 (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a fellow member of WP:AVATAR, I can say that all the useful information is there in the main article. As this does not satisfy the notability criteria and does not have any useful information, delete is the way to go. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect to to Avatar: The Last Airbender would be a good idea, per Mac. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap and this seems a likely search term that should point the reader to the main article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the redirect idea. --haha169 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  weak keep, are reasonable sources/reviews.  Just hitting the multiple non-trivial sources.  The first is childish (hey, it's a kids game) and the second is about the release.   Hobit (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you that it exists and is verifiable, but I still don't see anything that makes it notable. The fact that it exists means it deserves two lines in the main article (which it gets), not an entire fancrufty article. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally follow path in an AfD that a topic with meets WP:N and for which a reasonable article can be written should be kept here. Merging/redirecting editorially is always an option.  But this meets our inclusion guidelines.  And frankly, from what I can tell, there are some very interesting mechanics in this game (never played it).  So a good article might well be possible to write. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to keep, Scrye has some coverage proveably and likely has a bunch. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search shows that here is some discussion of the prospects for the TCG in the NYT and I don't doubt that there is more comprehesive coverage in more specialised sources such as Scrye. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYT one looks fairly trivial, but I agree, Scrye would certainly have something, probably a lot of something.  indicates that Scrye had an article in issue 93 on the topic. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The links provided describe the way the game is played, and the rules, but nothing about its history, creation, and development. The article does list a few sentences on the subject, but so does the main article. As the nominator, am I allowed to withdraw and redirect? --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly how you know what the Scrye article has in it. I strongly suspect various articles from that will cover much of that information.  And you can certainly withdraw, but I don't think a redirect is in order at this point. Hobit (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.