Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows)


 * 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hearts (Windows)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Why is there a separate article for this? It's Hearts on a computer. No real coverage of this.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: My initial reaction was to delete, but I see that this is part of a series concerning components in MS Windows []. The article is fairly mature in its development, since it does discuss the history of this component in past MS OSs. Also, I see no rationale for deletion based on the nom's statement.Roodog2k (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: You're not wrong, really. But as a component of Windows, this particular implementation rises to notability.  However...  the article should focus more closely on program itself and not spend so much time discussing the game.  That's what the main Hearts article is for. - Richfife (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Because it's part of a series, I'd suggest that you withdraw this AFD and either drop the issue or put together a group nomination for Hearts, Solitaire, Cruel, FreeCell, and any others that you can find. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done so for Solitaire and FreeCell.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all of the comes-with-OS games into a single article. Outside of FreeCell and Minesweeper, the other games are repeating known rules for the physical equivalent and thus unnecessary; there's no notable coverage of those as individual games (I suspect that the whole can be discussed in light of lost time/productivity due to their inclusion in the OS).  --M ASEM  (t) 13:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The focus of this article (IMHO) should not be about the game's rules, although it's worth mentioning. The focus of the article should be about the component called Hearts in the OS.  It's a piece of software, just like any other component, and it's development history may differ from other games, especially those that were intorduced in Vista or 7.  Roodog2k (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be about the history of the product. That is not demonstrated short of saying "introduced in (Windows version)". Furthermore, video games are generally expected to have some type of reception section albeit for something like this is may be more about its legacy. For Minesweeper and Freecell, heck yes.  For Hearts and the other bundled games, nothing's been shown.  The articles can still be groups so that we don't lose the information that Hearts was added to Windows at version X, or any other minor details that can be sourced, but a full article is absolutely unnecessary given what is currently and can be found from Google. --M ASEM  (t) 02:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hearts has been part of Windows for a long time, and just because it's an implementation of a common card game doesn't make it less notable. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator is correct that there's no real coverage, i.e.  notability has not been demonstrated. It's a shame, because the role of Hearts in Windows for Workgroups was certainly a notable event in PC history, but this is effectively an unsourced article. Of the two references, Danny Glasser's blog post isn't reliable and the Microsoft primary source simply lists "Hearts game" as a feature of WfW 3.1x, without any description. The "keep" votes from Roodog2k, Richfife and  Karimarie are missing the point: it's irrelevant that the subject is theoretically notable if no-one has provided references to prove it. Merging it with other Windows games as Nyttend suggests is inappropriate: Solitaire and  FreeCell  are independently sourced&mdash;and anyway they're notable for different reasons.  Masem's merge proposal seems to be saying that it's unnecessary to have an article about any software that is "repeating known rules for the physical equivalent". I think that's too broad but I agree that there's no notable coverage cited. - Pointillist (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? I wasn't suggesting any page mergers.  I meant that the nominator should nominate all of these games for deletion if he wanted them to be deleted.  Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry – thanks for clarifying - Pointillist (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep part of a series of Windows related articles about a subject that is notable, even if the article has troubles demonstrating that. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge There are simply not enough sources to justify this as a separate article. By combining all of the comes-with-OS games together, a much better article will emerge. Such a combined article does not prevent separate articles on Minesweeper and Freecell if they have enough sources to support them. Eastshire (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. Not enough notability to establish a separate article, but certainly enough of a long-standing bundled game to receive a mention on the main OS page. P0150neD   r1Ce        asian  00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily sufficient implementation-specific detail to make this worth keeping, for example on NetDDE. Certainly could be improved, and I can imagine a 'Bundled Windows Desktop Games' article that could replace the individual articles, but not a deletion candidate right now. Mcewan (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep http://www.google.com/search?q=hearts+windows&tbm=bks —Ruud 18:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep now that I've added three reliable sources. I do think it's a bit steep that none of the "keep" !voters bothered to add any citations per the Afd advice (which says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination"). I've struck my delete !vote now. - Pointillist (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous mentions in books and on the internet, a classic game available in many editions of the world's most successful operating system, has been around since 1991.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2012 (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.