Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribbles (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Philippe 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tribbles (game)

Tribbles (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD: non-notable card game. A quick Google search turns up only trivial mentions and catalog entries. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Completely unsourced? I'll agree that I haven't added much to it, but the reference I did add (before you made the AfD, by the way) is from SciFi.com. And it's a review, so hardly a "trivial" reference. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep - seems to have a number of independent sources in google. Laudak (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I found on Google:
  • [1] User submitted review (these are specifically mentioned in WP:SOURCES as not being acceptable.
  • [2] Review listed as reference, I agree that this article is non-trivial
  • [3] Rulesheet
  • [4] Catalog entry
  • Several ebay and amazon.com listings.
  • Several more pages of catalog listings.
With the exception of the review on Scifi.com, none of these seem to satisfy WP:SOURCES, thus failing the notability requirement of multiple non-trivial sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the writer should definitely expand upon the article, or even merge into Star Trek CCG if necessary, but it is not unsourced. There are a lot of articles out there that don't have non-trivial website sources (of which this article has at least one), so that should not be the main thing to consider here. Mathman1550 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • From WP:NOTE:

    If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. "Presumed" means if there is substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, then we presume the topic is notable. However, a subject that is presumed to be notable may still not be suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.... Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

Of the refernces presented and those that I have been able to find for this game, there's only one that satisfies the first paragraph in this criteria: the scifi.com review. I'm not exactly sure what Mathman means in saying multiple non-trivial sources are not the main issue. Verifibility is one thing, I'm not arguing that this game doesn't actually exist, and that doesn't nessacarially require sources described in WP:NOTE to prove. My issue here is notability, unless someone found print sources that aren't being listed, I don't see how notability is established enough for this game to stand on its own as an article. Merging is a definate possibility. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions)

  • Comment. I started the article because I have the game in hand (received as a gift), but I have not yet actually played it, so I can't yet contribute much to the article about rules of play, etc. As for whether it's a notable topic or not, I'll leave that to everyone else. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Like User:Mr Senseless, all I can find is the SciFi.com review. That does not warrant substantial third party coverage in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Star Trek Customizable Card Game, which already has a brief mention of this game. There appears to be only one good source on the Tribbles game, which is not enough for a stand-alone article but may be enough for a mention in the main Star Trek CCG article.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (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.