Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cards Against Humanity (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. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cards Against Humanity

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

I'm concerned that this game may not meet the criteria for notability. Many of the references are only trivial, or on small websites - some do not exist, and some are links to Facebook posts or other primary sources. While the game might be good, I'm not sure if it's notable, so I'm bringing it here for further debate, The Cavalry (Message me) 21:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm inclined to say keep because a good part of its notablity in my mind is that it is an independently created and published game. The page does have sources. And I also see a "kickstarter" mention in there too. I'm usually on the delete side, but this page (and game) does strike me as notable. Outback the koala (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AV Club, Chicago Tribune are both big enough sources and they are in-depth reviews; and that's just going by what's in the article. I see a few more out there [1], [2] , so I'm confident it's notable. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep considerable coverage by RS. -Drdisque (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently one of the most popular toys (e.g. #2 card game on Amazon [3] with 600+ reviews). -Anon 30 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk)
Keep 1032 ratings and 308 comments on boardgamegeek is enough for me. Also, it was notable last time, why are we doing it again? Has it become more obscure? Khendon (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A few points: popularity (the measurements you are using at BGGeek) is not part of the consideration we use for notability. And as for what was the case before, notability as a condition for a stand-alone article is a presumption and can change over time. Not that I'm saying this is non-notable (see my keep above), but that the arguments here are rather weak ones and should be avoided at AFD. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Popularity is an indicator of widespread knowledge of an object, product or concept. In this case I beleive it is an indicator and valid. Outback the koala (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the depth of the sources in the article and the ones Masem provided, I'd say this certainly has enough notability as defined by the WP:GNG. I wouldn't say that all the sources in the article give notability, but there are plenty of reliable third-party sources that do. - Sudo Ghost 16:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game is basically an offensive version of Apples to Apples, which has a page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notoriety is a worthy reason. clarka 3 December 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.150.41 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Close as 'Snow Keep' per everyone else on this page. There's no way there's going to be consensus for closure. LK (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (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.