Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crow (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 merge to The Crow#In other media. J04n(talk page) 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The Crow (card game)

The Crow (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Collectible card game that does not appear to pass notability guidelines. The only sources listed with substantial information are brandonlee.com and cardboardconnection, neither or which appear reliable. My own searches don't come up with any information. Pretty much just a one-time release of Crow-inspired cards that was really not notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is that sources that are not online, are not substantial? Isn't that a fallacy of logic? Two of the sources are full on books in my possession. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Because they are collectible card game guides. Being listed in a guide does not establish notability. The full on books are not books about the Crow and they do nothing to establish that the topic is any more notable than any other entry in the book. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador Can you show me this policy in Wikipedia? I'd like to learn more. Where does it say that a book or magazine has to specifically be about one subject matter to be notable? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador Let me guess, there is no policy per your argument, as determined by your silence. Willing to stand corrected though. Addendum: Doing a little digging here, and it appears to me that per WP:PSTS, these guides, or "compendia", are tertiary sources and Wikipedia states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." So, it doesn't specifically rule out tertiary sources, in fact, you can interpret that to say articles can use them to support articles. I've always known you can use primary sources in limited fashion, but tertiary sources are also useful to support the existence of something. These tertiary sources are reliable, because they are published by major publication companies such as Random House, Krause, and McFarland, which means they go through editorial review. So far, your statement "the only sources listed with substantial information" is blatantly and factually incorrect. It appears to me that The Cardboard Connection, could actually be a secondary source as it has dozens and dozens of articles from the company, which I imagine are probably peer-reviewed, and are definitely referenced on other Wikipedia articles such as trading cards. There is substantial information in two sources you don't have direct access to and you're trying to outright dismiss one of the online sources. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Leitmotiv: - can you try to learn how to actually notify users before you lose your mind at them? Goodness. Being listed in a guide does not establish notability - why would it? Try to apply common sense. Stop taking things personally for no reason. *eye roll emoji* ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador My response was calm and metered and you were adequately pinged (twice). All I'm asking is for a direct answer to my question... which you still haven't supplied, but have instead only provided your opinion. So in response to your personal opinion, I ask again, "Where does it say that a book or magazine has to specifically be about one subject matter to be notable?" Please don't repeat yourself like you just did. I have offered Wikipedia policy, something you have not done. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: WP:GNG. That is all the policy I need to nominate this for deletion. And stop making strawmen, as I clearly never said a topic had to have an entire book about it to be notable. Nothing about your reaction has been calm, and you really don't know how to ping people (twice). I am not going to respond to this thread anymore because you are just taking this AfD personally and I don't want to get dragged into the muck. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador, it appears that pinging got your attention again. Read whatever tone you want into my statements, but you're the one hearing the tone in your head (your own inner voice), so look no further than the mirror for your reality.

Of course you won't personally respond (the onus is on the you to defend your AfD nomination), because your running out of rebuttals. Your blanket reply of "WP:GNG" without pointing out specifics suggests you don't have any, and you're throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. Your argument sounds hollow, because it is. Even the policy you're quoting defines notability "[generally]" but not "specifically" but you do specifically state a "guide" is not notable without specifically stating how, not even in "general" wiki terms.

But I'll respond to WP:GNG: It states "significant" and "independent" coverage, which a book or guide is specifically just that and your own source even states it "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Many would argue a book is a secondary source, even a "guide". Your stated Wiki policy is "general", whereas the policy I stated (WP:PSTS) goes into further detail allowing even tertiary sources. Your whole argument is devoid of substance and full of things you claim I'm doing. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep Merge - El cid, el campeador's argument against the sources was: "the full on books are not books about the Crow", suggesting books need to be solely on one topic. But his own citing of Wikipolicy WP:GNG says the opposite: "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Leitmotiv (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete or merge it's clear it exists, but there's not a lot of significant independent coverage out there online. Upper Deck was considering a reboot a couple years ago, but there's another card game called Crow which also comes up which is played with a 52-deck set of cards. If there's a suitable merge candidate - perhaps the movie, it was a movie, right? - that might be best. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

SportingFlyer Have you reviewed the sources supplied in the article. They are suitable secondary sources which qualify as significant and independent. There is nothing that says Wikipedia can only use online sources. Response? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I personally don't think two card game catalogs qualify as significant in this context. Not a whole lot here, really. Probably worth merging here: The Crow#In other media SportingFlyer (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

SportingFlyer These aren't catalogs. I could add more from the "catalogs", but I didn't see the point as it would mostly discuss gameplay. I don't think you've reviewed the sources like you claim you have and I consider it an outright lie, unless you were answering another question. The Scrye guide is used extensively in Collectible card games because it has in depth analysis of the history of the market as well as each game separately. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I view them as a catalog of prices even if they're not selling specific cards. I simply don't see how listings in two price guides gets this past the WP:GNG threshold. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate the accusation. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate your miscategorization in attempt to support your argument. I get it, you have your opinion, but techinically speaking, these aren't catalogs. They are however, legitimate secondary sources. So when you say "Yes" to my question of have you reviewed them... then yeah, I might get a little pissed off, because you clearly have not if you're suggesting they're catalogs, so maybe I'm right, or you're the leading example of hyperbole. I'd have more respect for you if you admitted you didn't review the books, but instead suggested that title makes you think they're catalogs. That I can get behind (but you'd still be incorrect). As I stated before WP:GNG says it "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Please show where in Wikipolicy where there is a breakdown on different types of secondary sources that you suggest don't qualify. Btw, the guides have plenty of prose, which demonstrates to me you haven't reviewed these sources one iota, you just looked at their covers. Straight from an Amazon review: "Quite useful listing of collectables with some information besides being just a list of CCG (Collectable Card Games)." Leitmotiv (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The article has four sources, two of which are "game checklist and price guides" without any reference to any article within those game checklist and price guides apart from being listed; being listed in a price guide or game checklist does not convey notability. I don't need to have a physical copy of these magazines to review the prose in order to vote on a deletion. One of the other two references is a press release saying the game may be rebooted but wasn't, and the other one is a Crow memorabilia website. I get it, you're fighting for an article you created, but based on a review of all the sources it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question, which seems to be pretty convenient for folks with arguments they can't defend. Please show me where in wikipolicy that certain kinds of secondary sources are not notable, or where books need to cite a specific article within (but for the record, it would cite the subject matter at hand; that's how the guide and reviews are structured). WP:GNG does not state anything you're offering up, but you're pretending like it does. You may not need a copy of the guide to have an opinion, but you've lied like you've reviewed it and you continue your charade like you know its content. Now your circling back to the title of book as if that describes the entire content within, and I've told you, you're glaringly wrong.

Honestly, this has little to do with me fighting for my article, I can see another way to fix this that I'm perfectly suitable with, but I'm very upset with the principle of the matter in some of these AfDs where people vote for stuff, offer up wikipolicy that doesn't exist, and then lie about their review of the content (in another AfD someone nominated, the reviewer said he reviewed the sources stating they were blogs and wikis, and none of them were). That's my concern! Look at it from my point of view - you haven't quoted me any specific wikipolicy to show me why the secondary sources I provided don't qualify - and to top it off, you basically repeated the dude before you. That's why I'm angry. You haven't reviewed the sources cited, just like you probably haven't reviewed the argument someone made before you and was shown to be baseless when I quoted exact wikipolicy that contradicted what he was arguing. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why do you cite the same page number in one of the sources for three different card games? Eagles (card game) and The Dragon's Wrath all share a page number from the same magazine as this article. Same with C-23 (card game). That tells me there's nothing significant about this coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. As someone who votes on deletion over a range of topics, the fact you're asking me to track down a 15-year-old magazine to show notability for an article shows the article isn't notable. Notability requires existence of sources. Even assuming these are full-length articles on the game, that wouldn't necessarily make it notable. There aren't many sources for this game, and it appears from a directory source not a lot of people own it or have played it: [1] SportingFlyer (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not a page number, but total number of pages. It could be I'm using the wrong template from something I learned years ago on here. So your assumption I'm using the same page number to reference these games is wrong. I'm citing the whole book. If you want me to go in and cite specific page/s I can. I would have to look at the template for the citation again to see how its done. Also, this is not a magazine. As I've told you what feels like a couple dozen times now, these are books. Though Scrye used to have a magazine too, which may be why you're confused. The Scrye guide I'm citing is a paperback book with two editions: one from 2001 and one from 2003. The 2003 one has 688 pages. The book is quite good and details the history of CCGs as well as the games separately, and I quote directly from the cover: "'Descriptions and analysis for more than 550 CCG releases!" (bolding emphasis mine) But again, this is all besides the point. Magazines and newspapers are both secondary sources, even catalogs, though catalogs may be tertiary sources, but even Wikipedia policy says tertiary sources are acceptable. Please answer my question and tell me where it eliminates the secondary sources you are suggesting. Also, your last statement sounds a lot like original research to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

First, the citation should refer to the page number the information is found on, not the number of pages in the book. Second, the difference between a book and a magazine doesn't really matter: it's not a significant mention of the game, as you're basically citing an encyclopedia of card games. (I assumed the same when I said it was a catalog.) It proves existence and it would be a great way to flesh out an article, but listing it in let's call it a card game encyclopedia doesn't show notability. That means every card game in that encyclopedia would be presumptively notable, but this game isn't notable on its own. Again, there are four sources: two card game books/encyclopedias which list the game since it was a card game that was released, one press article saying the game might be re-released, and one movie fan site. I've looked for other sources and found the boardgamegeek page, which can't be used as a source anyways, but helps show it's not notable. It's not original research since it's not in the article. There's not much chance to expand the article past a stub, and it's not a popular card game. A very justifiable delete vote. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You're correct, there is no difference between a book and magazine and a newspaper, all are secondary sources. "Proving existence" is a primary source, don't confuse your information. But so far you still haven't quoted me wikipolicy that backs up your argument. WP:GNG does not support your argument as I laid out above. So put up or shut up. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your books do not constitute significant coverage of the material. If they do, it still doesn't establish notability per the presumption. The other two sources are promotional. I can't easily find any other sources. You can't really write more about this article. Also, WP:PRODUCT suggests this is better off merged into the main movie article. That's my argument. I'd also like to remind you of WP:UNCIVIL. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL applies to your original instance of lying, btw, which is why you find me responding the way I am. So if you want a more productive conversation from me and not reciprocal behavior, keep that in mind. I've asked you many times to cite sources per your claims, but you constantly circled back to WP:GNG which did not support your argument and why I was getting frustrated. I'm not opposed to being wrong, but the onus is on you to back up your claims - perhaps finding evidence for something that doesn't exist is why you had so much trouble and fell back to WP:GNG? This time however, you did supply something to back up your reasoning for a merge (which I'm fine with) by citing WP:PRODUCT and that's constructive, thank you for that.

You are however, again, unable to back up your claim that a book, specifically the books I cited, are not significant coverage - I can however: per WP:GNG it says the books I cited "[constitutes] significant coverage" (your words) and states "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Those books match that description to a "T". That establishes notability per the headline of WP:GNG where it discusses "General notability guideline"s, the very thing you are contesting. Also, I see one aspect of your argument also fails WP:NTEMP. Changing my vote to merge, per your argument of WP:Product, but definitely not because of your misunderstanding of WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This'll be my last response. The books you have discuss "over 550 card games" or the prices of "40,000 cards" (quotes describing the sources from Amazon.) There aren't any other reliable sources I can find! I'm answering the question: does the fact this card game was listed in two separate price guides (or card catalogs) get the card game across the WP:GNG threshold? Since the goal of these two price guides is to discuss all card games, or at least all card games by specific publishers, in my opinion, there's nothing notable about the fact the card game was listed in these guides. I don't have these books, but I am familiar with their purpose, and the fact the game was listed in them in my opinion does not automatically convey notability in the absence of other notable sources. Also, please be mindful of WP:BLUD. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You bring up interesting points, but are these points reflected in wikipolicy? So far you have not demonstrated that. So while I may be guilty of BLUD, you are guilty of hollow arguments, but you continue to vote as if you're informed. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

* Keep the game meets the GNG, in the specific sense (which is the only important sense) that the facts about its publication can be reliably sourced. There is no reason that WP should not have an article on every published CCG that meets this GNG requirement, regardless of whether or not people who don't play CCGs consider the game noteworthy. That subjective evaluation is not a GNG requirement. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There are other factors to consider as well with regards to WP:GNG though, including significant coverage and depth of coverage. This is a topic with only about six sources I could find; three of them appear routine/trivial/fan sites, and three of them are checklists or price lists (including the books mentioned above.) If the CCG notability rule is that the game was published and someone independent has published a price list, that seems to me to fall short of the spirit of WP:GNG; I think you'd need to be able to find at least a few more sources that aren't checklists or price guides or fan sites (not of the card game but of the movie, in this case). SportingFlyer (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have any trouble finding independent reviews of the game online, either, for what it's worth. But in any case, SIGCOV is not an additional standard of depth; the requirement is simply that the sources address "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." I don't see any original research here. I would remind SportingFlyer that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" - the standard is most certainly not "multiple sources that are not checklists or price guides", it is independent reliable sources for the material in the article. Such should exist in the case of any published CCG. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, I think this is where I'm having trouble: I've found independent reviews of games similar to this one, but I've only found a limited number of sources for this game, and I've done a lot of searching. There are a couple very similar games I've found reviews for, would you mind pointing me towards those reviews? Thanks. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Boardgamegeek, for a start. Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but I was hoping for something more substantial than a single forum post, honestly. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per Newimpartial, or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. The argument that all that is necessary for inclusion is to find sources to show existence is a direct contradiction of the basic policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We usually analyze this by the GNG , which requires substantial sources about the subject -- that is , about the subject, not just showing the subject exists. Price lists do not prove notability, but just existence. Forum posts are almost never considered reliable sources. It is often possible to argue in either direction about the meaning of substantial and similar terms in the GNG, but this seems an extremely strong example of exactly what is not meant by substantial & reliable. For games, books, and the like, the only usually accepted sources for notability are independent reviews--no other coverage is at all likely to be substantial. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, DGG, I had more respect for your opinion on notability before your Olga T. Weber nomination. It is simply not true that only independent reviews of games count for notability, though of course they are the preferred standard. NBOOK does not apply here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

DGG you should read the comments preceding yours as most of what you claimed has already been addressed and most of it is not supported by Wikipolicy. So far as I know, there is no wikipolicy stating a book of "price lists" doesn't meet notability standards, though I'm willing and waiting to be proven wrong. To the contrary I see price lists fit the definition of tertiary sources which is allowed by wikipolicy. But that's all besides the point, because the main source of this article is more than just a price list and fits WP:GNG as they aren't just price lists but are full on review, analysis, and history books. The mere fact that you suggest one of these books is merely a price list shows you haven't review the source at all. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge - nothing notable about the game. Not even a claim of notability. No sources support any notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

From a policy standpoint, no "claim of notability" is required. The above !vote is therefore not policy-conpliant and should be ignored. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Cute but you missed the first part... nothing notable about the game. oh and admins are really good and deciding how to weigh !votes. Happy editing Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:58, 26 February 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.