Deletion of Spells in Spellbinder

Comment: The main reason is that Magic: The Gathering is considerably more |notable than Spellbinder, or at least it has third party |reliable sources to establish its notability, and Spellbinder's article has few sources that do the same.  The fact that someone wrote and |published a program to play it doesn't really convince me.  It has no mention in the media, or if it does, it's not cited
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:SPS)

Comment: Keep what, exactly?  The previous text was replaced with {{tl2|copyvio}}.  Are you recommending rewriting the entire list?  Besides, |usefulness usually isn't good enough, especially when the subject of the article in question |is not demonstrably notable through third party |reliable sources.  Given the notability, although a brief synopsis may be appropriate, do we really need |the long and boring part of the rules
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:GAMEGUIDE)