Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tien len


 * 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.  Spinning Spark  14:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Tien len

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

nonnotable card game Curb Chain (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: "Tien Len can be considered the national card game of Vietnam. Probably, as a result of the Vietnam war, Tien Len has spread to some parts of the USA, where it is sometimes called Viet Cong or just VC." John McLeod -  Krenakarore  TK 11:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Where did you get this quote? Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow the fellow who follows the dream... Krenakarore  TK 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Googling it comes with the same sentence repeated over a number of sites, most of which are not reliable.Curb Chain (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pagat.com is not a reliable source. It is written by one author, with no transparancy.  John McLeod is also not an authoritative source or expert.Curb Chain (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're in no position to say that John McLeod isn't an authoritative source or expert in the field. Besides, the fact that you can't find sources in your language doesn't mean that it is non-notable. Much of the information I needed for Khanhoo, I found in Chinese language. I guess the same applies to, not only Tien Len, but many other games, you know. Krenakarore  TK 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Rylon (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not just a vote.Curb Chain (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you really haven't made an argument for me to discuss. You say it's non-notable, but you give no reasons to support that conclusion. You've refuted the reasons given that someone might think it's notable, but that's not the same has giving a reason for non-notablity. You simply haven't made a prima facie case for non-notablity.


 * But how about this: I came to this page because I saw people playing a similar game on the bus. All the players looked Southeast Asian, and I live in San Jose, a city with a large Vietnamese population. It's possible, even likely, that the game is well known among American-Vietnamese people, but it hasn't made it's way into typical Anglo-American card game rules databases. That's what makes it so hard to find English sources on the subject. For example, I have the most recent version of "Official Rules of Card Games" and it doesn't cover either this game, nor the Chinese game Big Two. Despite the fact that Big Two is extremely popular.


 * I think that, before this is deleted for non-noteablity, we get some kind of consensus from Vietnamese or Vietnamese-Americans about it's popularity among those groups. Because there may be english speakers who, like me, come across the game and need a reliable english source for it to learn more. Rylon (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a thorough search of the sources in Vietnamese and English but only came up with gaming sites. I could not find any literature on this game.Curb Chain (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that exactly where you would expect to find information about a game? On gaming sites? Rylon (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, these gaming sites are the flash game gaming sites that you play. There's no literature.Curb Chain (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Part of the problem is that there isn't a lot written or scholarly study on recreational games. Card games are particularly prone to this. Bridge and Poker get the lion's share and all the other games gets bits. Euchre, one of the most popular game in the English speaking world, is rarely written about. But even it gets more bits dedicated to it than Hearts and Spades do.


 * I think that there's clearly a game here that's popular. But I think you've miss articulated the problem. It's not that it's not notable, it's that most of the article is original research. It's seems to be based on personal experience rather than secondary sources. This page would likely be better served by a template saying the article is poorly sourced and that editors should try to find appropriate sources to add. Rylon (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but cut out everything but the lead paragraph per WP:NOTHOW. The lead has a fairly decent source already in it plus I found this, language is obviously a barrier to finding more. J04n(talk page) 11:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. Winner is also nominated for deletion, both are off-shoots of Big 2, maybe we should trim the articles into compliance with WP:NOTHOW and merge them into Big 2. Maybe move the trimmed content user space for further development. Rylon (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a repository of everything. If articles are duplicates or are too similar, they should be merged.Curb Chain (talk) 13:27, 5 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.