Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Combat! (2nd nomination)

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. John254 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Combat!

Ultimate Combat! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable collectible card game. Sources go so far as to confirm that it exists, but very little more than that. Wikis and resale sites not reliable sources. Last AfD closed with no consensus, and virtually no participation. Relisting to get a greater sampling to build consensus. DarkAudit (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No consensus can be made when you have one yea, one nay, and no one else bothering to show up. It's not my problem that the typical course of action in a case like this wasn't followed. DarkAudit (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- While there are few online resources related to this game, it was a relatively early copy-cat of the famed Magic: The Gathering. The article was supposedly even edited a few times by the actual designer of the game, although his limited knowledge of Wikipedia made it look more like vandalism and less like a useful edit. I'm not sure how to establish notability of a game; does it have to reach certain sales figures before its notable? I have several old decks of the cards at my home; I can't have been the only one to buy it. --Slordak (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability guidelines and Reliable sources guidelines will help. Wikis and other user-edited sources are usually not acceptable. Resale sites are usually trying to sell you the item, so aren't all that independent. The book source currently listed is a buyers guide, and really only shows that the game existed. What we need is reliable, verifiable coverage that is independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• The book in question contains description and analysis - it is effectively an encyclopedia of CCGs. For this game, there's an essay of about 1000 words by Ian Lee, which discusses its mechanics and compares them with other CCGs such as Magic and Shadowfist. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Using google to search for the game title and publisher got a number of reviews and mentions. I think it's at least somewhat notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:V; it's referenced: WorldCat Search Results Showing widespread library holdings of Reference. By the way, evidence strongly suggests that DarkAudit made this AfD in bad faith, nominating it merely out of spite (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9). --Firefly322 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus on the previous AfD a month ago. It's not my fault that only one other person participated, or that the closing admin chose not to relist as is the usual course of action in cases like that. Anyway, you can't prove a negative, so all I can say is WP:AGF. DarkAudit (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Its definitely not the worst around and can be improved with either a couple more citations or just remove the parts that are marked as citation needed. Mathman1550 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 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.