Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OKbridge 2/1

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. There is consensus that this is not a notable topic. The question is what is the appropriate way to handle this non-notable topic. Alternatives to deletion need to be considered and given preference and so my bar to closing these kinds of discussions as redirects rather than delete is low. However, concerns have been brought up about each potential redirect target and so I don't find any consensus to redirect and thus find a consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OKbridge 2/1[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

essentially a how-to guide; sole reference goes to main page of website and doesn't mention specific subject; no evidence of notability Tdslk (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have informed the contract bridge wikiproject with a message on their talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While in poor condition with the wrong emphasis, this article (or a more properly named 'OKbridge') has significant potential for improvement. It's emphasis should not be on how to play but an overview of OKbridge as one of the first influential internet platforms for playing contract bridge. Newwhist (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to an article about just OKbridge (maybe including mention of the bidding system), but I see it as a separate question from whether to delete this article. Tdslk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duplicate bridge to preserve the article history. In its present state, it violates WP:NOTHOWTO and doesn't meet WP:V or the GNG. Miniapolis 02:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Miniapolis and WP:ATD. Article is mostly what wikipedia is not (WP:HOWTO, WP:GAMEGUIDE). People can expand this with encyclopedic sources and information at the redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this a redirect, but there's no mention on the target article. Recommend a selective merge instead. (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, a tag on the target article is recommended for a proposed merge but I don't think it's necessary for a redirect. Miniapolis 13:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis, per WP:R#DELETE it is discouraged to redirect somewhere where the term (in this case "OKbridge 2/1") is not mentioned or discussed. (t · c) buidhe 13:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, that guideline is for pages at WP:RfD. In this case, the target would be in the article history as part of an edit summary. Miniapolis 13:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirecting to Duplicate bridge makes no sense. Not only does that page not even mention this system, it does not discuss bidding systems at all. Merging there, even with the briefest of mentions, would be WP:UNDUE unless a whole new section on bidding systems was written. A more natural target would be bidding system, but it is not mentioned there either. I would like to be at keep on this, but where are the sources? All I can see out there are copies of the system description from the OKBridge website and copies of this Wikipedia article. Even one half decent source would convince me to keep. I'm not bothered by HOWTO, that's a fixable problem, but the topic still needs to be notable. Newwhist might be right that we should have an article on OKBridge, but that's irrelevant to whether this article should be kept. SpinningSpark 14:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I'd be fine with a redirect to Bidding system (to preserve the article history in case better sourcing is eventually found) but—as I mentioned above—don't think that this subject meets the GNG. Miniapolis 20:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fine to redirect to a page that has no information. That is worse than useless as the reader will waste time and expend frustration looking for something that doesn't exist. Better to have a redlink and tell readers upfront that we have no information on that topic. It is explicitly against guidelines to do this per WP:R#DELETE bullet #10. SpinningSpark 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SpinningSpark 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as this article doesn't explain why it's notable beyond saying it's popular with internet bridge players. It also fails WP:VERIFY as the sole reference is the game site. Wikipedia is not an instruction guide. Blue Riband► 02:05, 14 July 2020 (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.