Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Yorker Pitch

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 of the debate was no consensus tending towards merging with pitch (card game). bainer (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Yorker Pitch

tagged for {{prod}}, but the tag was removed. There are no google hits at all for "New Yorker Pitch" in context[1]. Chick Bowen 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Chick Bowen 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Article gives other names for the game; google search of setback pitch returns 749 unique hits. Apparently also called High-Low-Jack (per articles such as [2]), which in turn returns 541 unique google hits. If kept, possibly should be moved to one or the other of the game's more well-known names. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. On second thought, Niffweed17 is right. The game is verified and played. Appears fairly encyclopedic and I think that the nature of a game, which can be set out with definitive rules, may provide more utility for the public than other topics (no one needs, for instance, to read all about some animanga fictional weapon). --Fuhghettaboutit 16:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that? There's a case to be made that Wikipedia's not a rulebook for card games; by your logic, I could put my recipes for coq au vin and eggplant lasagna into the encyclopedia. (they're good!) -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Exquisitely inapt analogy. Recipes for coq au vin and eggplant lasagna are not standardized formulations; rather, by their very nature, vary according to purely subjective concerns. However, I would agree that an article that stated nothing more than the rules of a game, might be a problem. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until and unless author provides a source or proof of some sort. I left a msg with him/her on the user talk page. Crzrussian 07:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep should be verified, but how do you verify a card game? even if only a few people play it, a card game qualifies as encyclopedic and shouldn't be trashed unless it's totally made up, which doesn't appear to be the case here. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any new information into Pitch (card game) and redirect there. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per WS23. Gene Nygaard 18:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Smacks of copyvio; no references to show that it's been listed in, for example, Hoyle, or another widely-distributed card rulebook. I think those issues need to be addressed before I could give a keep to this one. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've had trouble looking up obscure card games for reference purposes in the past, and know that there's not always much documentation; things don't alway get written down. It might thus make a useful reference. Sourcing needs to be improved, though. ProhibitOnions 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as per EWS23. Clearly this is a form or variant of the game described there. MCB 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as all of the above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone blanked the article, remarking that: "merged with main pitch article, also found a more published name for it to go by (partnership draw)". I've reverted this. Sandstein 09:20, 17 March 2006 (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.