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. Unreferenced with no showing of notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

007 Spy Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Prod removed by author. Non-notable card game, no suggestion of notability, no references. Author has repeatedly removed 'wikify' 'cleanup' and 'unreferenced' tags. Fair number of Google hits, but they are mostly forums, blogs and online retailers (aside from the fact that these are pretty common words, and would get a number of hits even if this game didn't exist). More telling is the lack of any relevant Google News hits. I'd be more patient if there were signs that someone planned on improving the article, but in fact all attempts to improve it have been rejected. faithless (^speak) 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure about this one, all I can say is that after looking around at various sites this game may be interesting. From what I found, not only can normal card games be played with these decks, there is a game similar to Magic: the Gathering. I tried looking it up on Google with the name James Bond instead of 007, but found only hits similar to the nominator's hits. - LA @ 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Interesting" isn't policy. Notablity and sources are. This article satisfies neither. DarkAudit (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to GE Fabbri Limited which manufactures various lines of game cards, but which has no article of its own. The 007 cards seem to be new (January '08?), but don't appear to have made news in the world of collectibles. Mandsford (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per... well, I don't even know where to begin... how about lack of multiple, independent, reliable third-party coverage?? I think this should satisfy most of us here. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of the article appears to be speculative, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. But not everything does. The article could work at a later date with a little cleanup, though. This article might be a little premature. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Izzy007 Talk 02:03, 29 February 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.