Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyle Card Games

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyle Card Games

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

the only content this articlr really has is one run-on sentence. Should be deleted Michael Jackson FOREVER!! (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep I don't believe it's a valid rationale for deletion anyway, but since I've had a quick tinker with the article it no longer applies anyway. Someone another 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someone another. Nom's reason is... unconvincing. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as bad faith nom? There's little content, but two decent refs. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially with recent expansion by Someone another (talk · contribs). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has reliable sources to pass GNG. Nominator hasn't given a valid rationale for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:19, 21 October 2010 (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.