Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos Cards

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. Sandstein 11:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logos Cards

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Aside from the single Kotaku article, there is no other independent reliable coverage of this game. Ineligible for PROD as it was de-PROD'd by the creator in 2010. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGSE agrees with you. It might deserve a mention in arts in Second Life. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think if CCGs in SL were popular it might make sense to have a paragraph on them, but it strikes me as undue to mention one particular non-notable project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a sentence would be appropriate weight, not a paragraph. :) --Izno (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, poorly phrased on my part. Didn't mean to imply you were intending a whole paragraph, just that I think it would be worth writing a paragraph about if it was a trend, but since it isn't, I think any mention is undue. I've noticed a tendency, when an article mentions one individual project, for other non-notable projects to get added over time as examples, basically turning the section into a list-directory of projects without any actual encyclopedic content. The theater section of the Arts in Second Life article is a textbook example of that kind of thing happening. It's a list of times plays were performed in SL, mostly by non-notable troupes, without any actual information about performing plays in SL. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that kind of cruft can creep in, but that's usually because sections like that aren't policed closely for non-secondary sourcing (of which a few paragraphs of the current #Theater section mostly don't have). I'm fine either way at the end of the day. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched " "logos cards" second life " on google, looked through all 9 pages, and didn't see any significant coverage in independent sources. It could possibly deserve a mention on the Arts in Second Life page, if even that. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2020 (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.