Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifts 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. The sourcing has been discussed in depth and its clear that notability is not established. Tip to Leitmotiv, attacking other editors rather than finding better sources is a) a waste of time and b) likely to get your opinion given less weight as you are clearly not arguing from a policy perspective. Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Rifts Collectible Card Game

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No discussion in detail in any reliable sources. The fact that it was listed in a now extinct notable price guide does not show notability in the slightest. Notable does not equate with reliable and existence, which is not disputed, does not equate with notability. All sources on article and all that I've found have no even vague indication of reliability. Most are blogs, some are Wikis. Fails GNG by a mile. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 05:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree, and I vote to Keep as the article's creator. You overstate your case when you claim there are no reliable secondary sources, and flat out lie, when you suggest nothing is discussed in detail. I doubt you've read the Scrye magazine, and yes, I call your bluff. Scrye is a reliable guide and personally, I prefer it to the competition of InQuest. Just because a magazine got put out of business by the internet, doesn't make it less reliable; that's nonsense talk and you're really reaching with that argument. Your flawed logic could be applied to any scientific magazine or newspaper that was rendered obsolete by the internet as proof that it is no longer valid. Sorry, facts don't become invalid just because a company stopped producing a product. The fact remains, Scrye was a relatively prominent publication and is both notable and reliable, and works as a secondary source for this article, as well as InQuest, should I choose to go through my copies of that for source material.


 * Furthermore, there is no wiki source in the reference section. I assume, you're referring to SF-Encyclopedia? That's has exactly three editors (which I see is prerequisite for being a reliable secondary source) and is the online version of the book in its third edition. You don't need just secondary sources to confirm the existence of something, but they can be used to flesh out the details a bit in a supplementary way (there are two primary sources in the article), the remaining are secondary sources of varying quality, but all of them are used to note different aspects of the card game. InMint.com, sells the game, but it also describes the premise, for which I borrowed a few things. The full paragraph is this:


 * "In the Rifts Collectible Card Game, mankind, once dominant, now must struggle for survival against dire adversaries both human and inhuman. Set approximately 300 years in the future, Rifts Earth is a planet beset by dimensional anomalies, called rifts, through which aliens, demons, and magical forces have invaded our world."


 * So, more hyperbole coming from you, disproven. The CCGGamez.com site has 5 paragraphs that I could copy here, but won't... nah, I think I will to directly show you haven't bothered to review the sources in any substantial way, and have mislead everyone in your case against the article:


 * "The world of RIFTS, as introduced 18 years ago in the role-playing game of that name, is marked by two factors: danger and diversity. Earth has become crisscrossed with key lines of magical power and pockmarked by gates into other dimensions. Demons, vampires and dinosaurs stalk the land while the Earthlings themselves, dabbling in hand-me-down science and newfound sorcery, have formed into factions engaged in constant warfare.


 * In the new RIFTS Collectible Card Game, players lead these factions to take over what's left of North America. Each player starts with one of nine faction cards, a deck (the size of which is dictated by the faction) and a hand (likewise). Most cards in the hand are drawn at random from the deck, but some are chosen before the game begins.


 * Some cards can generate resources. On each turn each player "rotates" cards to play other cards from their hand, with certain restrictions. "Base" cards, representing cities and other large installations, can only be played using resources generated by a faction card. Other cards can require resources with a specific attribute; for instance, a factional restriction such as "2 Pecos" means the resources must be generated by cards with the "Pecos Empire" attribute (so only the Pecos Empire or its allies can use it). Other limitations such as "Tech" "Magic" or "Techno-Wizard" prevent all-magic factions from controlling armies of giant robots unless they have some source of technological resources.


 * One type of card, the Unit, is rated for Attack, Counter-Attack and Damage Capacity as well as special abilities (almost all units have them). During the combat phase, a player can order Units to attack another player. When this is done, the defender takes damage equal to the attacking units' Attack, while the attacking units take damage equal to the defenders' Counter-Attack. Counter-Attack points equal to an attacking units Damage Capacity kill that unit, whereas Attack points kill defending Units or Bases or can be "Decked" meaning the defender discards that many cards from their deck or hand.


 * When a player's deck runs out of cards they are out of the game. The last player standing wins."
 * The owner of that site, has clearly played the game, or digested the instruction booklet.


 * Your portrayal of the article lacks competency by a mile. I'm a little peeved with your outright dishonesty here. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Scrye wasn't a reliable source, only that notability does not equate with reliability. It appears that it, alone, may be the only reliable source you've got. However, and admittedly, I cannot check it, when the title of the article is "Scrye Price Guides: RIFTS", there doesn't seem like there's much chance of a discussion in detail, which is a requirement of sources for notability. And as best I can tell from your TLDR comment above, you clearly lack an understanding of WP:RS, as your recent (reverted) edit at WP:N also attests to. I'm also going to ping to this conversation to look over your comment with an eye to copyright violation here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're backpeddling now. Go and review the 10 sources at the article, none of which are "blogs", nor "Wikis" and many, if not all, are reliable if you really poke your nose into them. Only then, come back with some legitimate arguments. Also, just because poor you, can't review any given article that's not online, doesn't mean it's not notable. Like I said, I could cite more of these non-readable issues if you desire. As for your TLDR comment, well that just shows you're failing at your job here and I expect more, since you were the one nominating this for discussion. The fact that I did write so much that your eyes just glossed over is probably proof you've given up, or that there's plenty of content worth citing. I suspect I understand WP:RS more than you do, if this thread is any indication. Leitmotiv (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I just looked over the sources. I'm a gamer but not a CCG person (well not after 1994).  I can't find any source that is more than either promotional text from the publisher (http://archive.li/9xZrf) or just a list of cards.  The very very small number of reviews and the really poor rating on BGG makes me suspect the game isn't notable (that isn't a WP:N argument, but great rating and large number of reviews would make me suspect there are good sources out there).  Now if the Scrye article(s?) has some depth, that would be great.  Do you have a hardcopy of the article you could scan and post somewhere so we can take a look at it?  But even if that article is solid, one article isn't going to be over the bar--WP:N requires multiple sources.  And card lists and the like just don't count for much.  Hobit (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for looking over the sources, you can see they're not blogs or wikis, huh? That pissed me off with that ignorant false claim. While the link you supplied is promotional, in some sense, it is promotional for the RPG book, not the card game. The card game was defunct at the time he wrote that. Though I feel you're exaggerating your critique here. There is only 1 list article and 1 so-called "promotional" site. That still leaves other sources. Sorry I don't have access to a scanner, but that's probably an investment coming down the road. As for a game being notable, that's really in the eye of the beholder. If I have reliable secondary sources one of the requirements for keeping an article around, it seems I've done my part to make an appropriate article. Btw, I'm adding another source as I've found more material from a book I've recently purchased. Any comment on the Youtube source? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you point out what you think are the best 2 or 3 sources? Everything I'm seeing is either just a card list or not independent.  But I'm willing to admit I might be missing something. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm rewriting my original response. If you can't figure out what the best 2 or 3 sources are, then maybe you shouldn't be the one reviewing the sources. It's pretty clear what the best sources are. But what makes this article great is that all the sources working together has made an article like this. It's a solid three paragraphs with another smaller fourth paragraph. I feel I could break down some of the flaws in the second sentence of your reply, but I deleted it feeling that we're going in circles and that maybe you aren't reviewing the sources properly in conjunction with what they're citing in the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The problem is I'm not seeing any good sources. I asked in the hopes I missed something (I looked at all the ones on-line in the article and didn't see anything that was independent and had depth.).  If you can't or won't identify any in the article and can't or won't add anything about anything not in the article, I think I've reached the point that I can't find a reason to keep the article.  Sorry.  Hobit (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a real close look then, rather than a glance. Scrye Magazine and a Book are good and dedicated sources on this very topic, there you got it out of me. But it shows that I don't feel you're really trying very hard. They're good sources and I think you should admit that. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything about the Scrye article anywhere. You apparently have it, but lack a scanner (or a camera?) to get a copy out and you've not described the coverage.  The book doesn't appear to have significant coverage of the game (it mentions it a lot, but no details that I can find). Hobit (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because you can't read something personally, doesn't mean it's not valuable or lacks content. Sorry, that's a fallacy. But yes, both have content regarding the article. Neither are fully available online, the book only in part, so I'm not sure how you can say you reviewed them. Addendum: If you look at the index it shows Rifts being mentioned on no less than 8 pages. I bought the book recently and I've applied it to a few articles I've edited and created, and plan on using this book much more. Addendum 2: I think it's funny that you say I haven't described the coverage. I created the article with inline citations! Have you read the article? As I said above, I could use these sources overlapping existing citations, but I didn't see the point. Do you want me to do that? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be formal (I commented above at length)  delete . The topic doesn't meet WP:N with any of the sources in the article that I can access nor do I have confidence that the sources off line have any more detail.  Hobit (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC) -- Correction--merge to Rifts (role-playing_game).  Probably just a paragraph, but it can easily fit under "Spinoffs and alternate editions" in that article. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your ignorance is no excuse to say you've thoroughly investigated the matter, but your voting like you have. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked at every source in the article that is on-line. You have the only non on-line source but have refused to provide it or describe it in any meaningful detail.  My sense is you have no leg to stand on and so resort to insults. It has certainly made me not wish to engage, but I don't care to be bullied, so here I am. This doesn't meet WP:N and you have no evidence it does.  Hobit (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Refused? That's not putting it honestly. You asked if I could provide material and I said I didn't have the means. I've also stated I made inline citations for the content they provide, but that seems to be lost on you, as well as your answer to my question if I should cite other stuff that overlapped in those sources. I may have come on strong, because the dude who started this discussion lied up front and it pissed me off. I may have insulted you because objectivity has left you. You state I haven't supplied evidence - ignoring the two secondary sources cited in the damn article. Somehow you think your lack of access is proof positive that they don't qualify. That's nonsense. They're bonafide secondary sources no matter how you personally want to spin it. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm to understand you don't own a cell phone with a camera? And that in addition you are unable to provide a summary of the article in your own words?  No on-line source that meets WP:N exists and at this point I'm unwilling to take you at your word that the off-line source has anything more (though again, a scan good picture or a fairly detailed summary would help). I lean toward inclusion here.  But there just aren't sources. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument is ridiculous. You don't seem to listen or answer my question (maybe I can return the favor?), which in turn would answer the one you're asking now. I've provided in line citation for the sources that essentially summarize parts of the articles. I'll ask again though: do I need to cite the the overlap with the other articles to show what they cover? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but you could provide the three best sources that count toward WP:N. And if you cite an off-line source, you could provide a brief summary of what that source covers.  This is a standard thing at AfD.  As far as I can tell, there are no independent sources that cover the topic in any depth.  Hobit (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed that concern too. Are you sure you've read my comments? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I've read everything. I will admit I find the hostility hard to read through, so maybe I missed something.  Again, could you list the three best sources?  And if you list an off-line source, could you either take a picture of it or briefly describe it?  Hobit (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2018 (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.