Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King (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 Keep and clean up. In terms of numbers there is a roughly even split between those arguing for deletion and those supporting keeping the content, either as a stand-alone article or merged with another. The arguments in favour of deletion concern a lack of reliable sourcing. A reliable source has been found, with an offer to clean up the article and add further reliable references. I'm therefore persuaded on policy grounds that there is a sufficient consensus to keep the content. WaggersTALK  15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

King (card game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. States absolutely no sources. Has multiple problems Arsonxists (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Arsonxists (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I'm not finding anything on this, so it appears to be WP:NFT stuff. A few games websites mention a game by this name, but as a variant of barbu.  So, after this is deleted, redirect this page name to Barbu (card game), since we already have a section on that.  If RS are eventually found for bridge variant named king, then a section can be created at Contract bridge, and a disambiguation hatnote can be used to distinguish them. However, given the  amount of material written about bridge, the fact that this alleged variant simply doesn't appear in major game sources pretty much says it all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Barbu (card game). I just did some cleanup work at Barbu (card game), and it is a trick/contract game, and from the details in both it seems clear this is actually a WP:CFORK, not a WP:NFT instance. However, much of the material in the stand-alone page is going to be redundant with the overall gameplay material in the other article, so this is not a "just copy it all into a section" merger. Rather, material that is entirely specific to this variant of barbu should be merged to the king/rıfkı section. There is  source cited, but it's unclear how reliable it is, or whether it provides all the material, so I would leave specifics of the merge up to regulars at Talk:Barbu (card game) and perhaps also ask WT:WikiProject Contract bridge and WT:WikiProject Board and table games for input (I've notified all three talk pages of this discussion).   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC); updated: 05:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As I chose to be guided by SMcCandlish's argument, I shall continue and agree with the merge and redirect proposal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. According to David Parlett (2008), King is a 3-player, 36-card Russian compendium game uncovered by researcher, Anthony Smith, and goes back to the 1920s. Although some of the contracts are similar, it is not the same as Barbu which is a 4-player, 52- card, French game. In fact, according to John McLeod, the French version of King is called Le Jeu du Roi. Also King has nothing to do with whist and is actually a member of the Hearts family. So the article is a mess: its text is unsourced and the rules are incorrect. If there is eventually a consensus to retain it; I'm happy to clean it up and source it. I'm also happy to remove the section on King at Barbu (card game) and check the other sections there which are unsourced and look suspect. But I wouldn't merge King to Barbu; they're different games in the same family; a bit like whist and bridge. Bermicourt (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Unreferenced. BEFORE failed to find anything to save this. User:Bermicourt above suggested there are sources, but did not provide proper bibliographical information that would help verify such claims.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I gave you the reference! David Parlett's 2008 publication which is entitled The Penguin Book of Card Games. Go look it up on Google Books! Frankly I don't care what happens to it; I was simply offering to align and source the article to Parlett if the consensus is to keep and clean up. Bermicourt (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing is the issue here... only one source has been found so far. <b style="color:green; font-family:Magneto">~EdGl</b> <b style="color:purple; font-family:Magneto">talk</b> 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.