Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safari cards


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Safari cards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable collectible cards game. If you did a search like me, you'll no doubt find this game it has numerous mentions in Boys' Life magazines (e.g., ) and in newspapers (e.g. , ). But these are all primary sources, and I cannot find any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject.

For these same reasons, I am also nominating the following content fork: -- I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG per nom. To clarify something he said, the "sources" he mentions are advertisements. Ansh666 03:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For 2nd hand cards for collectors. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't make them any more reliable. Ansh666 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - To call this a "card game" is not at all accurate; these were simply collectibles, like baseball cards. As with other popular and long-running collectible card series it would be very unusual if they attracted no coverage in third-party literature (catalogs, appraisal guides, etc.).  It's highly likely that such sources do exist, though many of them probably predate the Web era.  Unfortunately there is no WikiProject for trading cards so it will be difficult to attract the necessary subject matter expertise to this discussion.  I've left notifications at a few other WikiProjects which seemed relevant. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. These were not really trading cards, but a popular educational reference publication in card form - a fad format of the period (and earlier ones, see Mantegna Tarocchi), that worked best with recipes. Like partworks the business model was "subscribe until you get fed up & don't renew". The nom misunderstands the nature of the topic, which the article doesn't explain very well either. I presume every subscriber got the same sets in the same order, so it was useless for trading, which was not the aim. I don't know how much is published on this area, but as someone who used to work in the sector I think it is encyclopedic. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a game or not, or its level of distribution to subscribers, or its aims as an educational tool, I still don't really understand a compelling reason to keep the article.  above has said that sources probably exist before the web era, but it's not really clear to me what those would be.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, sources might include write-ups in catalogues and appraisal guides for the collectors' market. There might also be reviews in the educational literature, such as journals catering to teachers and curriculum developers.  Unfortunately I don't think any of these types of literature are particularly well represented in online archives such as Google Books and Google Scholar. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but I am still uneasy about a claim to notability based on statements like "I think this is encyclopedic" and "I'm not sure how much is published on this area,".   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: No proof that there is any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I've searched a number of commercial databases for older sources and found basically nothing. There is still a place on Wikipedia for these I believe, under an article for Editions Rencontre (the publisher). Though not at the level of detail seen here, maybe a paragraph or so, along with the other card sets they made. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. New to wikipedia, but it seems wrong to me to delete a useful article on these collectible and interesting items. I have just looked at the article with a view to adding a complete list of these cards from the late 1970s early 1980s. They were not collectible or tradeable when first issued, because as it says above they were issued to all purchasers in the same order (in pretty much the same way as the children's encyclopaedia that I got at the same time). Evidence for this is available via a youtube clip of a 1981 TV advert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkqgH9ji0oY. They are collectible now, and there is a market for them on ebay, for example view this item: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Trilobite-Prehistoric-Animal-Safari-Card-/360483563092?pt=UK_Collectables_AnimalCollectables_SM&hash=item53ee7ea654. I have used a useful reference site here: http://www.atlaspicturecards.com/safari_cards.html and also identified references on collectors site, for example here: http://www.collectingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=19928. As part of my set I have a magazine advertisement describing the partworks nature of the item. I am not sure how you can evidence this on a web based medium. Apologies if any of the above is in the wrong format. Jbatet1710 10:23, 17 August 2013 (UK GMT+1)
 * Thanks for your contribution, Jbatet1710. I think most of the commenters here are aware that there are plenty of advertisements for this card set, and it's not hard to find people discussing them on the web.  However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which requires all its articles to be reliably sourced.  This means going to sources which are independent of the subject (so advertisements from the publisher and their agents don't count) and which have some sort of editorial oversight (thus discounting things like personal websites and message board posts).  Are you aware of any coverage of Safari Cards in books, magazines, or other media issued by a major publisher? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable and no WP:RS offered. Information is not useful if not verified. And as an enyclopedia, we deal in notability and verifiable info from reliable sources.  Dloh  cierekim  03:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No less a part of our cultural history than anything else in the Trading Cards category.Smb1001 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So far, no sources have been offered up to suggest it is at all representative of "cultural history," and the relative quality of other articles on trading cards have no bearing on this discussion. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 00:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as there is no evidence of notability that I can see here. Some RS added to the page would sway my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and no reliable, non-primary sources in evidence. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2013 (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.