Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MapleStory iTrading 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 delete. ScribeOfAges's opinion is discounted per WP:WAX. Sandstein 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory iTrading Card Game

Non-notable card game. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep, there is a significance to it if you had waited more than 1 minute for me to add more. Also you say this is a non-notable game? What about the Austin powers collectible card game that is here that saw only 1 release? I call that non-notable. ScribeOfAges (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let it stay, this game is made by Wizards of the Coast, a company that is definitely note worthy considering they're also the makers of Magic: the Gathering. You also have to consider that this is in partnership with Nexon, the owners of the MMO Maplestory. --Deretto (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should stay in accordance to Wikipedia's guidelines:

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.--Deretto (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source: WP:NOTE--Deretto (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only claim to notability is that it's made by WotC, but notability isn't inherited. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This CCG is still actively sold in major retail stores such as Target. This means that the game is still growing as public information regarding future sets have already been released to the public. --Deretto (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008
Keep; This CCG is still actively sold in major retail stores such as Target. This means that the game is still growing as public information regarding future sets have already been released to the public. --Deretto (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You already voted above. Please strike this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Although 'CCg by WotC' is not an inherently notable category, it at least seems deserving of consideration, and my impression is that it's reasonably successful, and may be expected to run for quite a while. I'm not sure if we have detailed CCG notability criteria. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MapleStory seems the obvious choice, and it's already mentioned there. Delete as second choice if merge fails. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When users look up MapleStory, it's not to find info on the iTCG. Not only that but having a separate article also will result in better organization so that users can find the information they want fast.--Deretto (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (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.