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. Sandstein 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Jabberwocky (card game)

Jabberwocky (card game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

The article was created in 2004, but has never been adequately sourced since. It's also been tagged as needing additional citations since 2016. I can find no mention of it in my extensive library of card game books, nor is it listed by pagat.com or in David Parlett's massive tome on worldwide card games, The Penguin Book of Card Games (2008). To be fair there are a couple of online sources - Cats At Cards and Cardgame Collection - but both look like private sites and I'm not sure of their reliability. The article cites a self-published book which is not readable online. The previous deletion discussion took place in 2004 in the early days of Wikipedia and the arguments for retention do not appear to meet current guidelines. So all in all my sense is that it doesn't meet notability criteria and should be considered for deletion. Bermicourt ( talk) 15:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete: Even though I found these two independent reviews ( [1], [2]), I'd argue it's still not enough to pass WP:GNG.

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.