Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternation (solitaire)


 * 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. As there is no content verified to reliable sources, merge is not a suitable option. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternation (solitaire)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not seeing any references for this, not even in passing. There are some google hits but they seem to be about the general usage of the word alternation, not about a game named thus. There is such a solitaire variant, at least there are some online versions of it, but nothing goes beyond basic rules and 'play this here' type of pages. I am not seeing any in-depth, independent coverage. As such, the topic seems to fail WP:GNG, also WP:V and WP:OR are an issue. Not seeing a good redirect target (this topic is not mentioned in Patience (game) nor Stonewall (solitaire) which are linked in the lead) and there is no referenced content to merge. Redirecting to Patience or Stonewall is not a good idea per WP:R. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge with Patience (game), a merge option clearly visible when reading the article. The Banner  talk 17:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You fail to address that there is no referenced content to merge, and the target articles don't mention the topic thus such a merge would fail WP:R. Did you even read this nom before copypasting your vote? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you believe I did read your nomination and believe your arguments are faulty. The Banner  talk 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So please explain how they are faulty. Just saying they are does not make them so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - all I could find - a few general playing rules pages such as the one here.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:36, 21 March 2020 (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.