Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloom (card game) (2nd 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Gloom (card game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Very short article that gives no information about the card game in question. No references. Article was previously deleted after a discussion, but has been recreated. Unionsoap (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (categories)


 * Quick note - the contents of the deleted article differs to the contents now (thus a CSD speedy is not applicable). Seraphim  &hearts;  16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done a very quick search for sources and have found these which may or may not be reliable:, , (Seems reliable - has an editor-in-chief),  (ditto),  (ditto). Based on this, I believe this article should be kept.  Seraphim  &hearts;  16:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable commercially successful hobby card game - see sources above. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The references are so easy to find, that I wonder if the nominator even tried to search, as requested according to WP:BEFORE. The criterion for deletion is unreferenceable, not merely presently unreferenced. DGG (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - If references are so easy to find, why haven't any been added. This is a one line article; unless someone is willing and able to give it some content it should be deleted. Unionsoap (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note you don't get to !vote in your own AfD&mdash;your position is understood by your nomination. –  7 4   01:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, why didn't you do a quick search for them and add them? Sometimes even if you don't have the time to work on the article yourself, adding a few sources to a talk page will be much appreciated by whoever next comes across the article. Deletion is a last resort. Seraphim  &hearts;  23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already had the required number of reliable sources at the time it was nominated, so Unionsoap/Wordsuch's claims are false to begin with. DreamGuy (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Part of the essence of Wikipedia is that it is a community effort. Many articles have started as 'one-liners', posted by someone who may not have the time or ability to go further, or who may have found something interesting to cast into the arena for others to take up. Someone else will usually carry on the work, and others join in too. Lack of information becomes ground for deletion when it fails to identify the subject properly. Otherwise, it is cause for making the article a stub, provided other criteria are met. This does identify the subject. It is labelled a stub. There are now some references. Peridon (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and below. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Even without the additional sources other editors have found, this short article does have a source showing the game has won a major industry award, which clearly shows notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Winning a major award in its field makes a subject notable regardless of the size of the article. (More sources are only needed if the sources themselves are needed to establish notability. That is now covered by the award) - Mgm|(talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable by award and sources are shown to exist. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination -- person who nominated is a relatively new editor whose editing history seems to show major sockpuppet concerns. I pointed this out just as I pointed out the same about the person who put a prothis article recently as a revenge edit (User:Wordssuch, who was explicitly warned by an admin not to do such behavior). Based upon their actions and the original similarities in their User pages (created with short sentence to make the editor name not show up as a red link) I believe both editors to be the same, and most likely socks of some other user. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DreamGuy - the admins blocked you all weekend for your unacceptable behavior, and now you are immediately back at it again. I nominated this two sentence article because it is has almost no content. Now I would like your apology for making false accusations against me and your uncivil behavior. Unionsoap (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think nominating articles I created for deletion without any sensible reason will somehow result in an apology for my having noted your suspicious behavior in other AFDs, well, you are sadly deluded. DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 10 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.