Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/400 (card game)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 20:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

400 (card game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found no coverage for this game and the article is unsourced. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not finding much in reliable sources, but is a reliable source that it has existed in the past and there are a number of on-line versions of the game on the web.  IAR keep on the theory that it appears to be a real and significant game, but I can't find sufficient sources to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the French page gives two bibliographic sources. I don't know what the notability criteria are for card games, but they would presumably serve as references for the rules at least, if someone can find them and check. As it happens I have an older edition of one (the Penguin book) and can't find the game in there, but then I can't find Spades, either. Mortee (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, Google Books couldn't locate it in their copy either under the name 400, but the 'lire en ligne' link from the French page suggested looking up "41, Syrian card game" instead, which is there (in Google's copy, not mine):
 * that leads me to this page also giving the rules and attesting to the "400" variant name. Unfortunately, the Penguin book gives different scoring - just double points for 7 tricks or more, whereas we and Pagat say double for 5+, triple for 9+ and instant win for 13). Anyway, some coverage at least, to weigh into considerations. Mortee (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * that leads me to this page also giving the rules and attesting to the "400" variant name. Unfortunately, the Penguin book gives different scoring - just double points for 7 tricks or more, whereas we and Pagat say double for 5+, triple for 9+ and instant win for 13). Anyway, some coverage at least, to weigh into considerations. Mortee (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Finding RS in English is difficult for the countries concerned but good work by previous commenters indicates verifiability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like IAR keep call it GNG keep the sources provided show that if someone with the language skills could locate the sources, they would likely exist, which meats the criteria for GNG. Let's not delete this because of systemic bias. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2017 (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.