- 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 merge to Pez. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pez Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was de-PRODded without explaination, lacks notability. I was unable to find any additional sources. As it stands, the article relies on a price guide for card games, a defunct PEZ fan wiki, and a brief entry on a toy museum's website (link 404's, see archive here). I don't think the sources currently on the article show notability. Waxworker (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep/merge There were journals which covered the torrent of CCGs including Inquest and Scrye. I expect that there are reviews to be found in such. In any case, there's an obvious alternative to deletion – merger to Pez – per the policy WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES? Really? At least go the to the trouble of posting the usual GOOGLEHITS results, please. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge the one reliably referenced sentence (to Scrye) to Pez then redirect. Not much else we can do here unless someone finds better sources. The Scrye reference is not enough to know if the coverage was substantial, I used to read it back in the day - maybe the game got few pages of coverage, maybe one paragraph, maybe just an advertisement or a price list... And the reference suggest the latter, which would make it just a catalogue-like entry with no meaningful discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge the small bits of information from the one reliable source to the main Pez article. Even if the coverage in that publication is substantial, it is still only a singular source, and multiple reliable sources are generally needed to pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.