Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacon (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 delete. The delete argument is compelling and keep votes do not substantiate the necessary sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 19:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Bacon (card game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was created in 2009; that same year it was tagged for being unreferenced, and it has remained unreferenced ever since. I can find no reference to "Bacon" or what is supposed to be its alternative name, "American Euchre", in American or international card game compendia. Almost all online sources are circular references and the game is not listed in the world's leading card game website, pagat.com. "American Euchre" normally appears to refer to the North American variant of Euchre, as opposed to the British variant. The only reference I can find to "Bacon" is at catsatcards.com, but it is itself unsourced and may simply draw inspiration from the Wiki article. If, as this Wiki article says, Bacon was invented during the second half of the last century and is popular in the eastern US, one would expect to find it covered either in modern American card game literature or in online sources from that part of the world. But there appears to be nothing. Eleven years is plenty of time to find sources; it's now time to delete this one. Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Found two sources that confirm most of the points made in the article. I removed the unsourced material (mainly variant rules, for which I could find no sources).Guinness323 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful, however, one of those sources is a blog and I thought blogs weren't valid sources. However, we may be able to replace it with the catsatcards.com ref. Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Looks to have been improved, there should be enough coverage out there to add more sources.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems there are three potential sources for this, and I don't consider any of them reliable. Denexa is a corporate blog for a small business that sells playing cards; gamerules.com is indiscriminate in what it publishes, per their about us page "this is a community effort if you’re looking for a game we don’t have tell us, and we’ll get it on the site ASAP. Did you invent a game? Badass! Send us the rules to it and if it makes sense, seems like fun, we’ll add it and promote it on the site to your credit"; it's hard to tell exactly what catsatcards is because their about us page literally just lists a bunch of cats. Essentially, we have three different self-published sources, none of which are from people with established expertise and none of which are reliable or establish notability. Lowercaserho (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no claims of notability in the article, the references present do not support notability, I searched for anything to support notability, but the did not find anything (name does not lend it's self to a narrow search)  Jeepday (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I was not able to find any better sources for this variation. It is mentioned once or twice in passing in a couple of sites but otherwise not elaborated upon except for the sites discussed above, which are insufficient. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 00:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this editor made several other unsourced articles on card games (which I am now checking for sources); it's very possible they were inventing the games themselves. I'm not sure how to tell if the sources found are citogenesis or not. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete 11 years unsourced = citogenesis more likely than not. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The total lack of sources seems to have been addressed. Here is one more that was interesting to read - not sure about reliability, however. As a WP user I would appreciate having this article available to me if I wanted to know more about the game, which doesn't seem to have been recently invented as speculated above.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:03, 14 December 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.