Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2/1 game forcing

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. Kurykh (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2/1 game forcing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTHOWTO TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't play bridge, so I can't make any sense of it. People who understand the jargon don't need it, people who don't understand the jargon can't use it. Per WP:NOTJARGON, the same policy as WP:NOTHOWTO, supported by MOS:JARGON. Anything that's worth keeping here belongs in Contract bridge#Game strategy. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Merge~~ ~~to Bidding system, the parent for this bridge bidding system. No independent notability.~~ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MaxBrowne below has provided evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Seems like the best option, given the lack of independent notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To delete or to merge? That is the question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the 4 major bidding systems currently in use, the others being Standard American, Acol and Precision, all of which have articles. Its use has been steadily increasing. Independent notability in that several books have been written about it. Article needs improving but that's fixable. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An absolutely essential page in the contract bridge world which some day should graduate to become a featured article on its own. There are many authoritative books written by world class players on the 2/1 system. Yes, improvements are needed but that is no reason to abort an emerging article. Newwhist (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "absolutely essential," then there should be plenty of sources that talk about it independently of other bridge bidding systems. If those are provided, then it should be kept. If not, then, well, not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, this, this, this, this and this? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't withdraw at this point, and I still suspect that if I were king of Wikipedia I may also have a lot of the other bidding system articles deleted as NOTHOWTO, but I seem to be on the wrong side of the community on this one. TimothyJosephWood 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:, I agree there's a WP:NOTHOWTO argument to be made, but at this point, the sources seem to confine it to a content argument, not a notability one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Delete - This page is more a how to page and agree WP:NOTHOWTO should be included. There is also a lack of notability attached to the page. Joseffritzl (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep -yes, the content is overly technical, but the subject matter is fine. The Land (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2017 (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.