Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible 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 Delete. Although the topic may be important/significant enough to meet CSD A7, consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines due to the lack of sufficient reliable source material. -- Jreferee    t / c  16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game is a collectible card game based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And that, restated in a number of innovative and verbose ways, is about it. Oh, wait, no, we also have the rules. And a game guide. Seriously, one could almost speedy this as being nothing more than a restatement of the title. There is nothing here that is not completely obvious from the combination of "Buffy" and "collectible card game". As far as I can tell this is just a completely generic spin-off "game" (i.e. trading card marketing hype) which is indistinguishable in any important respect from a dozen others. It's not spam, they don't seem to make it any more, and it's not even really Buffycruft, as it's not about Buffy at all, it's just a write-up by fans of the game. There is enough decent material here for a sentence in the Buffy franchise article: "And there was a trading card game". Cruftbane 19:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see some gameguide issues, but nothing unfixable. The rest of the afd seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Some sources are required before it passes WP:N though. Artw 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not "I don't like it", more "it's completely generic and there's no evidence of lasting cultural or historical significance or non-trivial independent analysis". As in: the world does not give a damn about it.  Cruftbane 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom + no assertion of notability--Victor falk 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep! This is a serious (albeit officially discontinued) card game with organized tournaments, official judges, a substantial community, etc. It can't compare with, say, Magic, but that would be raising the standard awfully high. I'm rather baffled by the nom's "that ... is about it" comment -- the article seems perfectly well-organized and informative to me, and I really don't understand why it is being belittled. — xDanielx T/C 06:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's generic. The title says all you need to know: it's a trading card game with a Buffy theme. The rest is a game guide. Cruftbane 06:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This really isn't the spirit of WP:NOT (or whatever other policy/guideline). Wikipedia isn't the place for comprehensive, indiscriminate procedural information, but what's included in the article is just very basic background info which is rather essential to any baseline understanding of the card game. WP:NOT is one of those dangerously oversimplified policies which can be applied to virtually anything if we stretch it just a bit (is Microsoft a guide to the Microsoft corporation?). — xDanielx T/C 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a game guide, it's an article. It is only logical that an article about a game contains information about how the game works (although it would be good if this article had some more information on the influence/history of the game). Would you want to delete the article stud poker because it is a game guide?  Melsaran  (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Shouldn't there be an AfD notice on the page? I checked article history, and one was never applied. Turlo Lomon 10:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a Notability tag, as it does need references to establish notability. If Cruftbane wants to continue with his afd he should place the appropriate notice on the page, and the closing of the debate should be pushed back acordingly. Otherwise  close . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bum. I have intermittent problems with Twinkle.  Now fixed. Cruftbane 19:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It may very well be that some of the game guide / rule material needs to be removed, but the game seems notable, in that even though it was cancelled some time back, there are still a large number of people devoted to it. It even still has monthly newsletters (e.g. September 2007) created by the community!  Perhaps the article needs to be fleshed out with some information about the community created around the game...?  --Slordak 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to refrain from commenting on the article's ultimate fate, as I've yet to come to a solid conclusion about this one. However, I would like to comment to Cruftbane: I admire and appreciate your dedicated work and presence at AfD. However, I think your prose here is unnecessarily harsh. There are ways to critique, criticize, and even argue against an article without stooping to belittling. I also know that you know this, because I have seen you do so eloquently and appropriately many times before. - Che Nuevara 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article clearly needs cleanup, but I'm not convinced that the subject isn't notable. Rray 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Slordak. Obviously a notable game, with official tournaments being held. WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for deleting it as "cruft" or a "game guide" are not convincing.  Melsaran  (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I know for a fact that this game was written up multiple times in Scrye and InQuest magazines.  Of course, these sources aren't available online, but they're out there. -Chunky Rice 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this article fails WP:NOT. Lack of reliable secondary sources are evidence this game is not notable.--Gavin Collins 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because the article lacks reliable secondary sources is not evidence that the subject is not notable. I could write an article about Abraham Lincoln, fail to include reliable secondary sources, and the subject matter would still be notable. As Chunky Rice pointed out above, Scrye and Inquest magazine have both covered the game, so it's not that these sources don't exist. It's just that the article needs someone to add footnotes. And there is no deadline at the Wikipedia. Rray 13:17, 17 October 2007 (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.