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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese poker (loyola college edition)

[edit]

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

Clearly not Notable as its own article, and likely not as an addition to Chinese Poker. I would argue the article is not necessarily vandalism, however it does need to go. AKB10 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft, no sources, no notability, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems very clear. Agree, not vandalism, but also not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Fails WP:MADEUP Shii (tock) 10:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a no brainer. SSFF6B (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It comes from Chinese Poker. While Chinese Poker is a gambling casino game, this is a card game ment for groups of four individuals to enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taarasz (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six days, and still no references? Where's the notability? Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense somebody made up one day. 2005 (talk) 08:02, 10 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.