Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game (second nomination)


 * 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 Keep-- JForget 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was deleted at its prior AfD. DRV restored, as sources were mentioned late in that AfD, and these may need further consideration. For further details, consult the AfD and DRV. Deletion is on the table, as concerns about notability remain. Xoloz 14:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to AFD this again - just some unspecified 'concerns'.  There's no question in my mind that the game is notable and got significant coverage in magazines with international distribution such as Scrye and Inquest.  Since this was already established in the previous discussion, there's no need to go over this again.  Colonel Warden 15:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The result of the DRV was to relist at AfD. It can't be speedy kept. Smashville 03:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability should not be an issue here. It has been established that this game has been written up in both InQuest, Scrye and other sources.  That we are unable to access these sources is irrelevant for the purposes of notability.  As far as Verifiability goes, that can be sourced to primary sources such as the instruction manual and the publishers website. -Chunky Rice 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If one is "unable to access" sources because they are paper, it is still important to list them as citations. I sympathize with your cause here, but the encyclopedia can't just "take your word for it" that such sources exist, although I personally don't doubt that they do.  Citations would put all this to rest.  The article might survive this AfD without the citations, but they really do need to be there in the long-term. Xoloz 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that and I am trying to locate them, but so far I haven't found a library or store with an extensive back catalog of Scrye, InQuest or other gaming magazines. I'm far from the only editor to assert the existence of these sources, though, so it's not just my word.  Frankly, I think that deleting this article on the grounds of notability would be very misguided.  -Chunky Rice 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't be making that choice. I hope you can understand, though, that even taking many editors' "word for it" that these sources exist is problematic for an encyclopedia.  It's easy for people to mistake "notability in their world" for "notability in the mainstream press", and (in good-faith and totally unconsciously) assume that they "must have read it somewhere."  Wikipedia doesn't always have to choose to enforce sourcing rigorously (especially for popular culture topics), but that is the reason why the opponents of this article are worried, and their worry is not unreasonable.  Citations would make everybody happy, so I hope you find them. Xoloz 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, notability is defnied by coverage by third party reliable sources (which this has), not coverage in teh mainstream press (which this does not). I'm not making a subjective, "I've heard of it, so it's notable" argument.  I'm saying that this game has been the subject of coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject.  I can find people talking about the articles in question and know approximately when they were published, so I'm not just mis-remembering things.  I just can't find the articles themselves.  And If and when I find and insert a citiation, I'll still be asking people to take me at my word, because chances are the vast majority of people will be unable to verify it. -Chunky Rice 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per independent coverage -- "And just a another reminder if you have the November [2005] issue of Scrye to check out the publicity we're getting for keeping the game alive. Good article in my "unbiased" opinion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep i don't see why this wouldn't be notable. Bjewiki 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks to be notable, and collectible too.   Bur nt sau ce  22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep i've added one reference, it seems like there area lot more in print (add them when you've confirmed that please) so it seems like a pretty open and shut case. Artw 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep see the DRV for my reasoning. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Moderately well known game, very well known license.--Mike Selinker 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:N is a general test for notability, not the definition of notability. We shouldn't delete a clearly notable TCG just on grounds that the nature of the credible secondary sources makes them difficult to access online. (Further elaborated in DRV and previous AfD.) — xDanielx T/C 00:12, 25 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.