Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanghai rum
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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, although personally I think Dmz5 has a point. Chick Bowen 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a popular game that's been around a while. The problem with this article is that there is no way to verify the rules and point system used in the game. I've looked for some sort of rules from a reputable source. I've watched this article for a couple months and have seen the point system constantly changing. Fail WP:V. John Reaves 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A very popular game. So the point system changes? Mention in the article that there are variations. —Brim 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's popular, I've played it many times myself. But it fails WP:V (I've added this to the nom since I forgot to originally). The article contains information that cannot be verified, i.e. the rules and point system. John Reaves 06:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've added an external link to the rules which is from the same source as the source of the rules of the Gin rummy article, so shouldn't fail WP:V. The Rambling Man 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you intend to edit the article to reflect these rules? John Reaves 08:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the only content here is a game guide, which we all know that wikipedia is not. If someone can turn this into an article about the game, rather than instructions for how to play it, I might change my mind.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so does the same apply to the Gin rummy article which, to me, appears to be predominantly a game guide plus a bit of strategy? The Rambling Man 10:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think so. WP:NOT says pretty clearly that articles should not just be game guides. A paragraph describing play, perhaps a list of the basic rules, should accompany an article about the game itself. That being said, I admit that just writing all the rules/strategies is a good beginning for an article, which could then be expanded to the history of the game, uses in pop culture, etc etc. at which point the guide can be pared down.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOT says pretty clearly that articles should not just be video game guides. Shanghai Rummy is a card game. As for verifiability, there are many variations of the rules (aka 'house rules'.) Those currently listed seem to have survived editing and time. Otherwise, I suggest Mr. Reaves take the time to address his own concerns rather than raising the delete flag and expecting others to do the work. 66.177.5.252 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't comment on things you know nothing about. If you'd bothered viewing the history and diffs, you'd see the constant change in the point system. John Reaves 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't tell me what to do. I have been watching this article for some time and have seen the changes. I am well aware that there have been modifications. Some have apparently been vandalism, others have been reverted so that the points system today is the same one that was listed about 3 months ago. 'Constant change' is a gross exaggeration. 66.177.5.252 01:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't comment on things you know nothing about. If you'd bothered viewing the history and diffs, you'd see the constant change in the point system. John Reaves 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOT says pretty clearly that articles should not just be video game guides. Shanghai Rummy is a card game. As for verifiability, there are many variations of the rules (aka 'house rules'.) Those currently listed seem to have survived editing and time. Otherwise, I suggest Mr. Reaves take the time to address his own concerns rather than raising the delete flag and expecting others to do the work. 66.177.5.252 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think so. WP:NOT says pretty clearly that articles should not just be game guides. A paragraph describing play, perhaps a list of the basic rules, should accompany an article about the game itself. That being said, I admit that just writing all the rules/strategies is a good beginning for an article, which could then be expanded to the history of the game, uses in pop culture, etc etc. at which point the guide can be pared down.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a fairly popular game, and rules variations are extremely common in card games and shouldn't be a strike against having a page for them. As for the content, I think rules of card games (of the sort that are played with a standard deck of cards) shouldn't really be considered a violation of WP:NOT. Explaining how to play bridge or blackjack isn't a "game guide" in the same way that an explanation of where to jump to get star 1-6 in Super Mario 64 is. Of course we should strive to have card game articles be more than just the rules, but such an article would seem woefully lacking without at least a brief overview of how the game is played. Pinball22 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.