Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winner (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   no consensus. L Faraone  00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Winner (card game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no reliable sources to establish notability. Identical to Big 2 Curb Chain (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The game doesn't seem to be identical to Big 2 anymore than Contract Bridge is identical to Whist. A better solution might be to template the article with an invitation to better source it. Rylon (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. While waiting four sources is usually a reasonable request, this article is seven years old. I'd imagine that if there were reliable sources to be found, seven years would have been long enough. I could be wrong, but I think there is good reason to delete this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment. It's possible, even likely, that many of the editors haven't been looking for sources. That's what you get when you have a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A lot of editors aren't going to look for sources. By putting a template on on it, the article is more likely to attract the kind of editor who will add citations. Rylon (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep If the sources don't support notability, and there is an obvious merge target, there is no apparent need for an AfD discussion.  It is not the role of AfD volunteers to find reasons for an AfD discussion.  Further, the nominator removed information from the article just before making the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, oppose merge We can't simply say that every unreferenced article requires an unlimited amount of time for editors to find sources. There are some types of articles where the standards may be different (for example a politician listed as holding a prominent role or a science term that seems to indicate likely importance) but a card game with absolutely no references beyond its own google page which has been around for 7 years is not one of those. I also would oppose any merge (to either list of card games or a related game) without even one verifiable, reliable and independent source. The Chinese entry does not seem to have any, but a Chinese language source would of course be acceptable. I'm all for giving some leeway in finding foreign sources, but 7 years when there isn't even a sliver of an indication of notability, (and in fact there's really just promotion to a download website) is a different situation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - One can find better sources with these searches on the name in Pinyin:






 * In particular, there is this book, unfortunately only available in snippet view: A History of Card Games. In the snippets I can see references to two more sources, one in English by McLeod and another in French.  There is also this one: Teach Yourself Card Games.  Thus the card game meets the GNG regardless of whether the article has sources right now or not.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither is John McLeod or Pagat.com reliable sources.Curb Chain (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the book that cites McLeod is published by OUP, which makes it reliable. There is also the other book, published by McGraw Hill.  Two meets the GNG.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But is the coverage substantial? The GNG requires more than passing mention?--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:44, 25 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.