Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cribbage (rules)

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. Nominator was only one advocating for deletion. General consensus to keep, but merge discussions can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbage (rules)

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

Contested prod, for the reason of the article supposedly being a legitimate split from the main Cribbage article. However, I see this as a HOWTO and a fork that does not need to exist - the reason the article is so large (with 6 sources) is because there are multiple hands' worth of graphic "examples": example plays, example cribs, and example scores, which have nothing to do with stating the rules of the game; examples are for showing how to do something and therefore violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. The rules of cribbage are fundamental to the game, and they should be in the main article, not split out with unencyclopedic filler. MSJapan (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a few of the details back to Cribbage and delete the rest (especially that blue-purple-orange color scheme). I agree that this was an unnecessary fork; the main article isn't very long. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's an overly narrow interpretation of HOWTO that would exclude simple, sourced examples describing the play of an unquestionably notable game. I don't object to merging this back into the main cribbage article, but part of writing about a simple game necessarily includes rules explanations, and these aren't particularly over-the-top. If someone wanted to post an entire turn of Third Reich, however, I'd nuke that from orbit! :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of examples shouldn't be the issue; for example we have Rules of chess, Rules of Go, Singaporean Mahjong scoring rules, Japanese Mahjong scoring rules with a greater or lesser amount of graphic examples. Articles on mathematics and programming languages also have space-consuming examples. You can reasonably argue that the examples in this article are too numerous or badly presented, but I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that their mere presence is a problem. Melchoir (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several issues with the Cribbage pages in conjunction which perhaps warrants a major merge and may affect the purpose of this page. The main cribbage page does not explain how to score 'the show. Cribbage Solitaire, Cribbage Square Solitaire, CrossCribb and Kings Cribbage don't really warrant a separate page so perhaps the rules should include all of the variants. Cribbage statistics while thorough as described do not have a bearing on the play in the way that it does in poker or bridge, similarly there is a Cribbage (strategy) page. Also some of the information currently presented on the page needs some clarification.Tetron76 (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course the rules of a game that has been widely played for hundreds of years belong in a comprehensive encyclopedia, however anyone tries to try to shoehorn this into failing the letter of some policy. The only question is whether this should be a separate article or a section of the main cribbage article, which is not a matter for AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He who ignores the agenda and unstoppable power of the deletion army does so at his peril. They've been going for other games' mechanics for years. You weren't much help then. Then sports players & martial arts, and now...Anyone for Category:Tennis shots?

Comment - Normally I would agree with you, except for the fact that this material is already in the main article (where it should be) and was forked out for no apparent reason I can locate, other than to let somebody (singular) talk about how to play the game and postulate ridiculous "examples" that have no place in the articles. Literature (card game) doesn't have play examples, nor does Patience (game), nor does Backgamoon, although they all indicate the rules of the game. Removing the examples without some sort of consensus, therefore, will likely lead to an edit war, and redirecting will likely do the same. So, community consensus to do something is essential to resolving the issue. I would prefer to see it deleted, and therefore I sent it to AfD. The rest is up to other people. MSJapan (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Category:Tennis shots, Category:Tennis terminology, Category:Golf terminology, Category:Chess openings, Category:Bridge squeezes, all of which prove that WP:GAMEGUIDE is WP:CREEP.

I changed some of the more, imo, jarring Jawbreaker / Gobstopper candy colors to 'Shades of beize'. I left some of them, as a comparison. Anarchangel (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2011 (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.