Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karosel 2D


 * 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Karosel 2D

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Some new way of playing Bridge that doesn't seem to be well-known, hence unnotbale.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete the only published writing on it appears to be by (or heavily inspired by) its author (therefore non notable) who incidentally is the editor of the article (therefore original research). Abtract (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - bidding systems don't belong here. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree. If they are notable then certainly they belong here as, for example, chess openings do. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments. Although the article is written by the developer, that doesn't necessarily make it OR or not-notable; it is, however, a COI which raises those possibilities. I also disagree with the notion that bidding systems don't belong here. What is necessary is that it is NPOV, V, and NOR. On that, I am undecided; it has been published in American Contract Bridge League's Bridge Bulletin and on the "Bridge Guys" website but the article is not written clearly enough for me to understand and it is not well-enough referenced to reliable sources to dispel POV, V, and OR concerns. Happening upon the article, I tagged it as lacking some necessities and made a request for help from WikiProject Contract bridge. They seem divided as to whether it is notable but one editor promised to do a clean-up in the future. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of people invent bidding conventions. The question is is anybody using it? The answer seems to be no. No Ghits, when even the Little Major, a wacky one from the '60s, gets some. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has been published in the ACBL Bulletin (clearly a reliable source) and is on the BridgeGuys website, which is independent and fairly reliable.  Yes, the article has issues with COI, OR, etc., but those can be resolved.  Unlike LittleTeddy, I believe that there should be more bidding systems here, but am not sure to this level of detail, particularly if not all of the details have been published.  But there is no specific established consensus on this issue. Matchups 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in my view, for the reason given by Clarityfiend. Almost no-one apart from its inventor seems to be using the convention. JH (talk page) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no secondary sources; fails WP:N. Article content just lists rules and/or strategy; Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a secondary source, as mentioned above. To the extent that the article says, "you should play this way," it is a game guide.  But to the extent that it describes in an NPOV fashion (and I agree that work is needed there) an established convention that other people play, it is encyclopedic and belongs. Matchups 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is worthy of deletion, I won't fight you after this post. Almost no one plays Kaplan-Sheinwold anymore (as relay and canape systems are limited to very high levels of competition by ACBL regulation), yet you leave it alone. A few of you even vilify me for posting my own article. Some sanctimonious person also called it my "personal hobby horse" on the talk page for my article. From my end, that's almost crossing the line of objectivity. The sophistry of some of your arguments is laughable, as well. The funniest of all is the "well, he posted it, so it should be deleted as violating NPOV but if my friend posted the EXACT SAME article on my behalf it would at least not violate THAT provision."

On a side note, the reason I included the full conventional treatment is that when I listed merely the basics, the article was considered too small to even be a stub and was simply linked to the article "Contract Bridge." If you think that simply listing my article under the heading of "Bridge conventions" or "Bridge Systems" and not generally (which was my intent all along), then that is certainly OK with me.

Lastly, I have a comment about notability. We have to have the article referenced in a work separate from the source material. When it comes to things like bridge, what sources on point would NOT be relevant to the source material? Even the New York times doesn't print stuff about the use of Stayman or Jacoby Transfers, except in its Bridge column, which is NOT separate from the source materials. Above, someone noted that bridge conventions are like chess openings. Almost nothing has been written about the Sicilian Defense or Ruy Lopez that is NOT in a chess book, so how does this NOT violate the "notable but separate from the source material" provision?

Anyway, this old curmudgeon has blathered on enough. I've said my piece. As Yoda said, "delete or not delete. There is no try." TheKurgan (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (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.