Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urth trading 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   Speedy Deleted, G7 by Thingg. Lenticel ( talk ) 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Urth trading card game

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and non-professionally-published trading card game, with no sources listed let alone ones that would pass WP:RS. I'd speedy-delete it but unfortunately no speedy criterion seems to fit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC) ok thanks for helping me and giving me a part of your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) ok dudes you can burn this page delete the article i dont care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) --Mateia2 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)DELETE THE ARTICLE CAUSE I DONT CARE
 * Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources to establish notability, and the article reads like a rulebook -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i know the article its not fully ready but i added some references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the links because Youtube is not a reliable source. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ok hmmm mr unreliable i added our google docs page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That source is not independent of the subject. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * independent of what the community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Independent of the subject of the article. That is, we need sources describing the card game that are written by people who were not themselves involved in creating the card game. Additionally, these sources need to be published in a reliable publication, not just some web page self-published by whoever wrote the source. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * of what? it like saying give me a reference on the article cat without the subject cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * will a forum help?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Forums are not generally considered realiable sources. Please read WP:RS carefully. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ok junior call me crazy but tell me a specific reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is, I don't believe that I can. I don't believe that this game has any specific reliable sources — if I thought it did, I wouldn't have nominated its article for deletion. If you want the article not to be deleted, you need to find them yourself. And please be careful with your language. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lighten up dude i called myself crazy and thats a cool thing but now on the topic give me just me exemple --Mateia2 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)can the the http://creativecommons.org/ be an source after all tis in an open source game short to speak
 * If there were a full-length article about the game in the New York Times, that would be considered a reliable source. Creative commons is not adequate because it's not a source about the game itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:04, 2 January 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.