Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euchre variations


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Euchre variations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

nonnotable unsourced page of euchre variations, violating WP:OR, WP:HOWTO, and, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:SYN Curb Chain (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Many books about card games discuss the specific topic of Euchre variations. Perhaps best known is Scarne's Encyclopedia of Card Games, but there are many others. The Chicago Tribune wrote about Euchre variations as long ago as 1877, and the fact that their writer described the game as "insufferably stupid" does not detract from notability and may actually add to it. The solution to any perceived shortcomings in this article about a notable topic is the normal editorial process, not deletion.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Cullen, could you insert said sources into the article? Doing so might help the rest of us to provide more informed responses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add sources to the article when I have time, but a "real life" day I am spending with friends from out of town will keep me away from a computer for the next 10 to 12 hours. I linked to two sources above. What is your opinion of those, MezzoMezzo?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I and anyone else concerned would be willing for a brief extension while you or anyone else attends to personal matters before the discussion is closed out. Now, I did check them out and they certainly establish that the game is real, it existed and it was known (for being stupid). While only two reliable sources seem scant, the fact that the Chicago Tribune mentions it as being famous for being so stupid could be a good argument - this obviously makes it stand out from other card games, and negative coverage is still coverage. I'm also seeing a possible mention in this source as well as passing mentions on a bunch of gambling sites. I'm not opposed to voting to keep per se, but I would like to see more feedback than just you, me and the nominee. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * These sources discuss the existence of the GAME not the notability of the variations.Curb Chain (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The game obviously has variations and they are covered in numerous sources, as discussed by Cullen328. The worst case here is merger into the main article about Euchre.  A deletion discussion is a waste of time. Warden (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid encyclopedic material that could do with better sourcing but I see no reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2013 (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.