Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cards Against Humanity

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. — Cirt (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cards Against Humanity

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

No evidence of notability. Dmol (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep/Merge Frankly I'm torn. The BGG rating is good, but the number of reviews is pretty low, indicating this probably isn't notable. [1] is a weird blog site associated with the Chicago Tribune ([2]). Maybe reliable? There are enough other mentions that I'll say this should probably be merged somewhere, perhaps a section in "Apples to Apples" as an "unofficial variant" or something along those lines. The A2A page could use some love anyways. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've addressed some of the concerns raised above and added two additional, well-known secondary sources (The Onion AV Club and Thrillist). I've used the existing secondary sources to flesh out the history of the game a little bit and to explain the gameplay, which I think is essential to an article about the game. Regarding Hobit's commments, I disagree with two points. First, calling the game an unofficial variant of Apples to Apples seems unfair to Cards Against Humanity, since it includes several unique gameplay aspects (which I touched on in the gameplay section). Also, since the game is not played with the same cards as A2A, I'm not sure that "variant" is the right description. Second, I'm not sure that the BGG rating is a fair indication of the game's popularity, since the target audience of the game probably doesn't completely overlap with BGG users. HyperfineCosmologist 21:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — HyperfineCosmologist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Cards Against Humanity raised $15,000 on Kickstarter and was one of their featured projects. It was shown at PAX and GenCon. It's a legit card/board game same as anything else out there - no reason to punish it for being independently published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.44.132 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — 98.206.44.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I agree with previous "keep" comments. Cards Against Humanity has been featured on kickstarter, as is, if anything, more notable because of its independantly published origins. It is not a variant of apples to apples, and should not be considered such, although it does draw from apples to apples. RickO5 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This game is widely popular and has gotten a lot of great publicity over the internet. Two of the games creators, David and Max, were interviewed on the radio http://www.walkingonair.org/audio/CardsAgainstHumanityGamePart1.mp3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.64.148 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — 76.16.64.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - This game was #1 in Card Games and #2 in Toys and Games on Amazon.com as of 6/16/2011 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/toys-and-games/ref=pd_ts_zgc_t_toy_display_on_website_mor1?pf_rd_p=478116331&pf_rd_s=right-6&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=165793011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=10XM10AE6CK1S2SR77CK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.230.144 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — 64.134.230.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. More participation from experienced editors is needed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? I'm not arguing with deciding to relist, but it seems that in a weeks time, several reasons have been presented that support the merit of this page, and very little has been put forth otherwise. While it is good to have experienced editors oversee, and I believe it is policy to have an experienced member make a deletion decision, the merits of the arguments presented and the level of consensus reached is not dependent on having senior editors involved. With that in mind, this article was nominated for deletion because of lack of notability. Several sources have been cited, perhaps additional ones should be searched out. Do the current sources, overall, seem to satisfy the requirements for reliable sources? Seems to me, at worst, this article is of "unclear notability" at the moment, and according to guidelines "deletion should be a last resort." Since the only option for merging this article would be as a subsection of Apples to Apples, which I imagine most would not fin appropriate, I again fall back on a vote of *Keep*. RickO5 (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, why? Last week I added several what I believe to be reliable sources (Thrillist and The Onion AV Club, both of which have their own Wikipedia pages) that I think thoroughly address the issue of notability. Although I am not a regular contributor (except for the occasional fixing of typos anonymously), as a kickstarter backer of CAH, I decided to finally register on Wikipedia to help this article. I'd like to hear again from people who thought that the original version of this article was not notable if they still think that. HyperfineCosmologist (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I take it from the appeal for experienced editors that administrator Ritzman is uncomfortable ruling "Keep" on a new product sourced and sourceable only to blogs and one review by the Chicago Tribune. It is indeed very borderline in terms of sourcing, that I will grant. However, the open-source aspect of the game makes it noteworthy, in my estimation, and it does not seem that there are any lack of less-than-stellar sources that provide verifiability. My critique is that the piece is a little bit spammy and that should be fixed, but this seems a TAG FOR SOURCES + KEEP + IMPROVE situation to my mind. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted it because not only is the sourcing very marginal but aside from Hobit and RickO5, all the keep !votes are from accounts whose only contributions are to the article and this discussion. This is common practice at AFD. As far as your point about lowering the bar a little for verifiable open source projects, I could go for that if the community agrees but that will take more then just this AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for pointing out your reasoning. I had another question for you (and everyone), I don't know the current number of games sold/downloaded, but would a high sales figure help bolster notability? If it sold X number of copies, than at least X number of people found it to be notable enough to purchase, right? I'm just trying to think of other ways to assess notability, as I imagine web sources have been exhausted, and new board games, unless overwhelmingly notable or controversial, don't usually find there way into the Sunday post.RickO5 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2011 (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.