- 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 delete. Addhoc (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a card game (a variation of rummy) that is not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. CastAStone//(talk) 17:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems a very subjective comment. --Cardshark23 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC) — Cardshark23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, absolutely no reliable sources found in a search. Wikipedia is not for made-up card games. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest TenPoundHammer performs some better searches. "Doofer" is alternatively known as Proter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardshark23 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest Cardshark23 read WP:RS before getting a snarky attitude. Geocities is hardly a reliable source. JuJube (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest TenPoundHammer performs some better searches. "Doofer" is alternatively known as Proter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardshark23 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is Wiktionary a reliable source? --Cardshark23 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even close.--CastAStone//(talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore we assume that the pagat.com website (1999 onwards) is equally useless. It also references Proter on http://www.pagat.com/whatsnew.html --Cardshark23 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think that that looks like a much better site. It at least verifies that the game is real. Now the problem is Notability - you have to prove that the game is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia; if you can find a few newspaper articles or some mainstream media coverage about the game or the game's impact or the games popularity, something like that would absolutely change my mind. As of now, I feel this is not notable.--CastAStone//(talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore we assume that the pagat.com website (1999 onwards) is equally useless. It also references Proter on http://www.pagat.com/whatsnew.html --Cardshark23 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even close.--CastAStone//(talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. (Cardshark: "Notable" is actually a rather objectively determined term on Wikipedia.) - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you mean "subjective"? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak
- Delete as lack of sources indicates lack of notability. My Google search turned up diddley ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:49, 12 January 2008 (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.