Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cribbage (strategy)

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 merge to Cribbage. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbage (strategy)

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

How to like page about strategy in Cribbage, without any real encyclopedic value, should go somewhere else but not Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cribbage. There could easily be a section there on this topic and the article is not so cumbersome that it wouldn't fit. Sourcing is an issue, but I'm fairly sure there would be whole books on the topic, ergo this is an encyclopedic topic, albeit misdirected as a stand-alone article. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Carrite. A Google Books search for "Cribbage strategy" shows that some books have been published that devote great attention to cribbage strategy, and that many books have sections or chapters on the topic. That being said, it seems more appropriate as a section in Cribbage at this time, until that article grows significantly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Redirect to Cribbage as well stated above. An article purely on a game's strategy is always going to be close to HOWTO; a brief section on strategy would however make good sense in the main article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Warden (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly, Sadads (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden and Sadads, you are correct that Wikipedia is not a video game guide, where we would be expected to host instructions for the thousands of commercial video games that come onto the market constantly. However, cribbage is not a video game. It is a notable non-commercial card game using a distinctive physical scoring system, and has been played and studied for approximately four centuries. There is nothing in WP:NOT that prevents us from covering the strategy of exceptionally notable non-commercial games. See our well-referenced article on Chess strategy for an example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbage is a video game and it can be quite expensive too, for example $124.99 at Amazon. In its traditional form, it is commercial too as it commonly requires a cribbage board. But distinctions of commerciality and physicality are obviously irrelevant. The point is that we don't want people filling Wikipedia with their views on strategy because, in a game worth playing, strategy is debatable. If a game has been solved then we might say something of the solution because that would be a plain fact supported by a proof. But a full game tree which supports such a proof would be outside our scope because we are not a database of raw information. Warden (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete: Merge what is reliably sourced to Cribbage, and ditch the rest per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE and WP:NPOV; we are not here to push our opinions on what is/isn't good strategy. If in doubt, axe it. WP already has 1000x more unsourced stuff than it should have. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cribbage which could use the sourced material. Cribbage (rules) and Cribbage (statistics) should also be be truncated as excessive detail and merged into the parent. All of this material violates GAMEGUIDE as the Colonel points out. BusterD (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I found a few books and an article on the topic such as [1], [2], [3], and [4]. It is most certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. Bzweebl (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2012 (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.