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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echelons of Fury[edit]

Echelons of Fury (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)

Not a notable game. The only sourcing is to price guides, which are not generally substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this closely-related article/game:

Echelons of Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've searched for other sources online and there are a few fan sites and a review on BoardGameGeek. It's not devoid of sources, but there's not much there, either. Wonder if there's a good merge or redirect candidate. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Comment This AfD hinges on whether the two 1990's print sources get the game past the WP:GNG guideline as there are enough sources online to pass WP:V but not WP:GNG in its entirety. I asked User:Leitmotiv, the author of the article, to post photos of one of the sources to determine whether the source gets the article past WP:GNG. The photos have been added at the bottom. My personal opinion is that it doesn't, but I'm withdrawing my vote as having participated in a number of AfD's, providing photos of the source was a courteous move on the part of the author. SportingFlyer talk 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has valid sources per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer hasn't demonstrated understanding of WP:GNG. "[Some]" sources adequately meets requirements. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in order to clarify my vote: searching several different engines tend to come up with resales, forum posts, or the designer answering FAQ's about the game. It clearly exists. The best source I found, an independent after-the-fact review, is here: [1] Combined with the other sources, a blog post doesn't get this over the notability threshold, similar to a video game that failed to make any significant impact. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SportingFlyer hasn't supplied wikipolicy to support his past arguments. WP:GNG requires an article to have notable sources to make the article notable. Sources already supplied meet that definition. Now SportingFlyer is claiming there has to be a lasting "impact" but doesn't cite any wikipolicy to back up his claim. Stop moving the goalposts. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've already had a long argument about notability here and I have no desire to get into another argument: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Crow_(card_game) The sources supplied so far do NOT make it notable, hence why we're at this AfD in the first place, and no other sources I have found make it notable. The mere existence of sources do not make an article notable. I also did not claim it has to have a lasting impact; this was a comparison, as we do not give every published video game its own article. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SportingFlyer still a shining example of a person with an opinion, but unable to cite wikipolicy to back that opinion up. The source provided is notable per WP:GNG - it says a topic is notable when "'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." This book matches that description to a "T". That establishes notability per the headline of WP:GNG where it discusses "General notability guideline"s. The onus is on you to show how the source is not notable by citing specific wikipolicy, which you routinely fail to do over and over again. Quote me something. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personally attacking me. I know you're passionate about the article you created, and I know you disagree with myself and the nominator about whether or not these sources are significant enough to pass WP:GNG, but what you're doing is not helpful. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it from my point of view. I ask for specific policy and you just can't seem to do it, but you continue to argue vaguely about your personal opinion on what makes something notable. If your lack of ability to do something is an attack, then I stand guilty as charged (I'd like to point out it's stating the obvious) - but you're still not supplying any wikipolicy to back up your arguments. Quote me policy, or take your uninformed vote elsewhere. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are two sources currently in this article; they are the same two sources used at the other AfD; two different users apart from myself have nominated these articles for deletion on the grounds these game guide/price guide/checklist books do not by themselves make something notable (if a source on its own was sufficient for notability, we'd have a lot more articles on this website, and since these books I'm sure cover the game, but also cover a lot of other games in a less-than-discriminate matter, it makes the coverage rather trivial, furthermore they may or may not be a reliable source); and my search for other sources, which I have done in good faith, are reviews done ten years later, blogs, or general game directories such as boardgamegeek, which again is not sufficient enough for notability. If you could find a review from a reliable source, we'd be golden. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not citing wikipolicy because it doesn't exist to support your argument. WP:GNG contradicts what you are saying. Just because an article shares sources doesn't mean the sources are bad. That's a fallacy of logic. Also you're leaning towards lying again, because you haven't reviewed the sources in person - if you had, you would understand your latest comments are a complete distortion of reality to suit your argument. Here I am again quoting wikipolicy that backs up my argument and not yours - Footnote 2 at WP:GNG) says I'm golden if my sources are "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." Along with the description of a secondary source as I described above, man, what more do I have to prove that I'm following wikipolicy and you're just biased?' Leitmotiv (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't interact any further, but I don't have any bias. I apologize for doing this, but to the closer, please note Leitmotiv has a pattern of WP:BLUD on articles that he has created that have been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifts Collectible Card Game Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crow (card game)

Of course you won't argue further, you've demonstrated a complete inability to quote wikipolicy to support your argument. Note to the closer, I WP:BLUD to dismantle arguments with no foundation to support their premise. Takes two to tango though. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Leitmotiv or merge to List of collectible card games. BOZ (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not acceptable for a merge to an article designated as a list. It will be deleted outright. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Leitmotiv: - are any of the sources anything other than price guides? Even after that wall of text, I don't believe price guides meet the GNG requirements on their own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki - You'll need to show me how exactly price guides don't meet WP:GNG by quoting wikipolicy, which no one has been able to do (everyone abandons their argument without quoting policy). I don't mind being wrong here, but so far no one has been able to back up their words. Furthermore, to correct your original statement/presumption, at least one of these is more than just a price guide - as the cover even states: "descriptions and analysis for more than 550 CCG releases!", as well as a thorough history of the games - which makes them pass the requirements of WP:GNG because it states a source needs to be more than a trivial mention, which it easily passes. An Amazon review even states "Quite useful listing of collectables with some information besides being just a list of CCG" (emphasis is mine). But a book, is a book, is a book and it satisfies WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant page is WP:CORPDEPTH (as this is a product, it applies), which says Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements. Based on the fact that the article contents read largely like a summary of a list of per-card prices, and the 500 page book contains 40000 prices from hundreds of games, I seriously doubt there is substantial coverage in the price guide, which functions as a product directory. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little taken aback power~enwiki. I just described to you in my previous response, how this guide passes WP:GNG (and coincidentally passes WP:CORPDEPTH) and in what manner, but you insist on "doubting" my claim. What do I need to do to dispel your doubt? You go so far as to suggest the article reads as "a list of per-card prices" but ironically not a single price is listed in the article. I'm willing to say your putting forth a disingenuous argument at this point, because the article describes when it was released, the expansions, the number of cards, what the game was about, how difficult the game was, and so on. Tell me where you see card prices in this article, and I'll fall right in line with your argument, but until then you're way off base and reaching. The onus is on you to provide extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, and sir, I'm telling you, your claim that the guide is nothing more than a price list contradicts the proof I've supplied in the Amazon review, the cover of the book describing its contents, as well as my own review of the book.

• The main source of the article passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGIN, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
• Every delete voter claims otherwise, but still can't demonstrate how except with doubts and opinions. I expect more from experienced wikipedians with eligible votes.

~ Leitmotiv (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The First Edition set had at least 70 cards though some sources claim 57 cards. - I read this that one guide has 70 prices listed, and the other has 57. It summarizes the price listings. Both the First and Second editions had incomplete card lists supplied by the manufacturer. - trivial, unless you're writing a list of cards and don't have access to a complete set. Also, I agree with SportingFlyer. There's no point discussing this with you. I won't be replying to any comments after this one unless they contain egregious falsehoods. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well good for you if you don't want to discuss it - I'm not surprised, you haven't supplied wikipolicy to back up your argument and you ignore my arguments - you're right, that's a waste of time and a cul-de-sac of a relationship. At this point power~enwiki, your argument has become a Straw man fallacy, you've switched from saying the source is not notable, to the content of the article not worth reading. You've exhibited bias, distorted your argument suggesting this is an article about prices simply because one aspect of it discusses card set quantities (this doesn't concern prices, this concerns collectors trying to complete sets), and you've misrepresented your cause. I seriously don't mind being proven wrong - I understand doubts and opinions, but you do realize that sometimes there are exceptions out there and that things break the mold, but you're acting biased assuming there could not possibly be such a thing. Your lack of imagination is absurd and it discolors your reasoning here. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki pinging you to show you my latest edit at Echelons of Fire that describes gameplay, straight out of the book. I've never played the game before. I don't own it. I don't plan to. I know nothing about this game, except for what the guide tells me. I didn't make this content up. There's plenty of content in the guide for each listing. This should dispel your doubts, but I... doubt it, seeing the amount of bias showed. Leitmotiv (talk)

• I'm not seeing anything that looks like a real review for either. But my only real comment is that if we don't delete these two they should probably be merged together. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit The real review is already supplied in the reference. As I stated earlier to others, the citation has "description and analysis" for CCGs. In fact, you can see some quotations used in the articles reflecting that. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yep, Scrye looks to have a review. I just saw the full title and forgot Scrye had actual articles. Move me to weak keep. It's only one review, but looks like 3 pages and there are other sources that aren't so great that we are at least close to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC) w[reply]

The difficulty I have is that it's not actually a magazine review from Scrye: it appears to be a price list of a bunch of collectible card games which has this game/these games as an entry. @Leitmotiv:, would you mind terribly scanning or taking a picture of the source? There have been three AfD's now which all hinge whether this is a WP:RS, there are a couple other articles which are entirely reliant on this source, and yet none of us are really sure if it's a WP:RS or not. SportingFlyer talk 03:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer Okay, I'm gonna get someone to take a picture of the three pages. Where do I upload it to? You're not wrong when you say it appears to a price list, but you also gloss over the fact that the very cover of the book says it's more than that - but we've already discussed that. The book has a healthy section on the history of CCGs too, by year. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you can do so here: [2] Only have used the uploader a couple times at most, though. Would be appreciated. SportingFlyer talk 08:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I'm ready to upload. But this upload area doesn't seem the best place to do it. It would have to be under fair use, and it's not going to be used in Wikipedia anywhere, so I have no options there. I uploaded to imgur instead: 123. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google has some sources and a few reviews. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian, would you mind terribly linking a source or two? All I found was Boardgamegeek and a couple blog posts. SportingFlyer talk 04:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the reviews, they aren't from RS. This one and this one. This game actually doesn't seem to have much referring to it. I chekced the factive news databases..... absoltely nothing. However I can't determine if the sources quoted are RS or not, and Leitmotiv says they are, so assuming good faith, I will leave it as a weak keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My above comments on the sources still stand. The Scrye guide is a remarkable source. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was worried I had missed sources in my search. We've had other AfD's on the fact the one source isn't an RS with a merge and a delete so far. SportingFlyer talk 15:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.