Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bisley (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 keep. Preponderance of discussion is to keep the existing article, and there is no copyvio issue. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 17:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bisley (solitaire)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable game. It appears in some (but, interestingly, by no means all) compendia of board games, but these compendia only really give a brief outline of its rules, and do not contain significant coverage. Also relevant is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: this is an encyclopedia, not a card games compendium, and if there are no reliable sources out there containing information other than the rules that we can use in an article, it does rather suggest that the game is non-notable. Amisom (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see the problem.  Someone decided to write an article on this topic and it is not a hoax.  As shown by WP:BEFORE D1, sources are available on both Google books and Google web.  Information in articles requires verifiability, not sources from an academic press.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is not compliant with WP:N. Verifiability is not enough; it also has to be a notable topic. Amisom (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe there is a list of solitaires as a merge target, if that is your concern. And failing the notability test doesn't prevent retention as a standalone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And failing the notability test doesn't prevent retention as a standalone article. Yes it does. Read WP:N. Amisom (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have never heard of it but it's in my ancient Scarne's Encyclopedia of Games and, as Unscintillating has discovered, on many web sites. WP:N is a guideline for which there are "occasional exceptions", not a set of rules, but in this case applying the criteria leads me to think we should presume an article to be merited. Having an article looks just fine to me. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See my reply to DGG below. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * But if we agree that 'WP:ITEXISTS' is not sufficient basis for keeping an article, and that some additional notability is required, what is your reasoning for asserting that this case may be an exception to WP:n? It sounds like the point you're making (valid though it is) could be made in every single notability dispute. Amisom (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood me but I see, reading it again, what I wrote was exceptionally unclear! I think the notability criteria have been met but WP:N only takes that to mean an article may be presumed merited. I was accepting that people may think the criteria have been met but the article should still be deleted because this is an exceptional case. I do not think this is an exceptional case and I think the article should be kept. Of course, your other comment above is quite wrong. The notability guidelines do not require us to delete failing articles but that would not apply in this case anyway, in my view. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Cites no third-party sources.  Sandstein   18:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's neither a WP:DEL7 nor a WP:V#Notability argument without adding WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Notice: The entire article has been copied, verbatim, from "Total Card Games! The Biggest and Best Collection of Solo & Group Card Games". Per policy WP:CV the page has been blanked and has been listed at Copyright problems.  CBS 527 Talk 21:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find that book as a problem. From what I see, "Total Card Games! copies most of its contents from Wikipedia, not to. One of the reviewer wrote:
 * This book appears to be nothing less than a printing out of Wikipedia pages for each of the card games. There appears to have been no editing done by the "author", so that useless information such as ""Deuces" redirects here. For other uses, see Deuces (disambiguation) and Big Two (disambiguation)" (page 388) has been transferred to the book. On the Wikipedia page this would have had hyperlinks to the relevant pages, but here is meaningless as there are no disambiguation pages in the book! And, of course, as the info in this book is static, it will always be better to just look at the Wikipedia page for any particular card game you are interested in as that may be updated and improved.
 * Also, as you would see from the edit history, the contents of the article date from 2005, a lot earlier the 2015 the e-book was "written." No offense, but you better check your sources. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviouslt not copyvio but reverse copyvio. If it is covered significantly by Scarne,  famous authority, it's notable.,how extensive is the material on the game in that book?  DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 18 lines: Foundations, Layout and Play (1973 UK edition, ISBN 0094595208). So, more than a passing mention but not what I would call extensive either. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has enough sources to retain it. Inlinetext (talk) 16:24, 16 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.