Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levis poker


 * 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 '''SNOW delete. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)'''

Levis poker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject is a homemade game. No references. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Original author deprodded, so here we are. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Please let us know when there's proof that it's "played by a lot of people in the Ottawa area". From what I can tell, it's poker for people who don't like to gamble, and whoever has the best hand wins.  I'm not sure why anyone would want to fold their cards if there's no risk, although I'm sure that a point system of some sort has been thought up.  We make up games the same way that we make up songs or draw pictures, and almost none of them get noticed.  For each James Naismith or Irving Berlin or Pablo Picasso, there are a million creative people who simply had an interesting idea.   If it's any consolation, a lot of people will read the article before it's deleted.  Mandsford (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Borderline speedyable, with barely any credible assertion of notability, let alone sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, the "assertion of notability" clauses do not apply to games. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'd add that the key word in Jamie's statement is "credible" assertion of notability. Anyone can assert notability (I'm notable, just ask me), but the key is whether one can demonstrate it, whether it's a game or anything else that isn't inherently notable. Mandsford (talk)
 * I think wrt A7 and A9, 'credible' means 'plausible'. So if the article said that levis poker was a popular game, that would be credible, even though you and I don't really believe it. Even if A7 included games, you still wouldn't be able to CSD it if it said that. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. ??? why not?  What does apply? David V Houston (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "why not?" - See wp:csd - a7 applies to "individuals, animals, organizations, web content", a9 is similar for "musical recordings." I think the rationale here is that those categories have a lot of non-notable new pages, and allowing CSDs for them is a necessary evil for reducing the number of afds/prods? Ideally they'd go through prod, but because there are just too many of them, we unfortunately have to allow CSDs to be used? I'm not sure. A quote from the CSD talk page: "it's a crass exception to our fundamental policy." I'm pretty sure that is the point being made - it's a big deal that nonjibberish/nonvandalism is being deleted w/out a discussion like this one. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "What does apply?" - I don't believe any CSD criteria apply to this article, or I would have CSDed it. I'd like a CSD criteria for "0 chance of surviving afd" but it seems that is what the community has decided wp:prod is for. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete a classic WP:NFT case, and so obviously wrong for an encyclopedia that yes, it really should have been speedied even if it requires the mighty IAR to do so. The last sentence is a real gem though: "all names here have given their permission to be on the internet. If certain names are not on here they have not been asked yet." Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was beaten to the punch prodding this article. There is quite simply no assertion that this game is played outside the circle that invented it. Textbook WP:MADEUP case. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No WP:RS.  Quite literally WP:MADEUP (which used to be titled "Things made up in school one day" because of this sort of thing). --Closeapple (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: One reference was just added... something from weebly.com. Not exactly what WP:RS was meant for. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2010 (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.