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. Requested sources haven't been provided, WP:V holds more weight than a meatpuppet army. -- Steel 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Max cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Searching Google for the terms listed as "notable" for the gameplay does not result in any hits. Neither does the card game creator given by the article. Neither does the game's name itself. No sources. Potential hoax. ju66l3r 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This looked familiar but on closer inspection it is not the game I thought it was. Needs proper sources, otherwise delete as unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. NN, lack of web evidence. Pete Fenelon 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete - there is a lack of evidence, but i can verify that this is the (most possibly a myth) story behind max-cards (or as i knew it "maxcard"). My father used to play and talk about it. Very happy, but suprised to see it here on wikipedia! Page should state that story is myth only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiteboarder1 (talk • contribs) .

— Kiteboarder1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You may be able to, we can't. Hence the problem. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No sources? Delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the two images of it being "played" are paintbrushed Windows Solitare (I'm pretty sure), and so likely Fair Use violations. 68.39.174.238 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article I can also verify that max-cards does exist and is infact a real game, I have played it regulalry with friends and although there aren't any sources on the article, i still think it should be kept as it is a less-well known game and being on wikipedia should give it a chance to become as big a game as whist or solitaire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.127.69 (talk • contribs) — 82.152.127.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Article I too have played this game, but have not been able to find any sources to its origin or rules. However, i agree that if it is played by anybody, it should be on wikipedia. Many others I know play it, so it does exist!!! Keep the article!!! SiDUDe 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — SiDUDe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

• Keep Article What a surprise I found when I logged onto wikipedia and found an old game from my childhood. Max Cards or as I knew it, Maximus Cards, was a huge craze at my secondary school. I too agree that if it is played or ever has been played by a significant amount of people, it should be on wikipedia. Although there are no written rules the basic principle is the same as the game I used to play. Please Keep this article! User:Maxdabomber 20:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Maxdabomber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Article As a Swedish citizen and distant descendant of Hal de Max himself I can assure you of Max Card's existence. It is hugely popular in the coastal towns of Ånge and Härnösand. As we often say after a good game of Max Cards: Varumärkes och kommunikationsarbete! User:Dogend4000 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — Dogend4000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Do Not Delete I have played a good game of Max Cards many a time, although I was taught it under the name "Min cards" (obviously someone had a sense of humour!)I have never seen a rule book for Max Cards, but I am sure that, as demonstrated above, many people are aware of it's existence. I think it is time for Wikipedia to accept that concrete proof is not needed to confirm something that many people acknowledge exists, and is based on word of mouth. I would also like to make it clear that no card game I have ever played has equalled the skill and emotion involved in Max Cards. KEEP THIS ARTICLE!!! KEEP THE PAST ALIVE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS!!! User:bobdabildur 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — bobdabildur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Do not Delete Well my, my, my there has been a lot of interest in this article. As you can see from the comments above the game is real and although there may not be any sources on the internet, this is a real game and it should be kept on this fantastic site for other users to see and possibly play the game thereselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin99 (talk • contribs) — Robin99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Cut the cards as unverifiable. Non-notable, even if it could be verified. Tubezone 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete i have used wikipedia regulalry for looking up things and researching areas, after reading some of the comments above about there not being any sources. What happens to an article on a theory?? there are no sources for that?? so I think although there is a lack of sources there, are plenty of people who can verify/support it. And so it should be kept on here for people to learn about it (even though a dubious history) and play it for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.127.69 (talk • contribs) — 82.152.127.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Do not Delete Although there seems to be a rather strange cult following trying to save this article, I agree with the above user...I myself know a card game virtually exactly the same as this one, although we call it "quick-draw", and it is much fun and quite well known where I live...Lets spread the word. --Murray0056 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — Murray0056 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per V, RS, NOTE etc. - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How can the author prove that this exists? There are many card games and very few written rules. Furtehrmore this is not the first card game to not appear on Wikipedia, I would like to remind people of the very popular card game "Shithead", which is also absent from Wikipedia. I understand that some evidence is necessary, but surely if all these contributors claim to have heard of this game then it must exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.17.51 (talk • contribs) — 84.66.17.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can we please close this AfD now, before it chokes on sockpuppets ?? Tubezone 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article People have rightly said that this has no verifiable sources, and that a google search draws a blank - but that does not mean that it doesn't exist! I have seen this played at a friends house, at the suggestion of someone who had played it at uni. The article matches pretty well with what I remember, this is the first time I have actually seen a complete set of rules (I have found variations but these are closer to standard solitaire than Max Cards). I appreciate that this wouldn't get into the Encylopaedia Britannica, but since Wikipedia prides itself on being user-edited, there is no reason to delete an article about a 'cult' card game which is causing no harm - and has finally let me understand why my friend kept shouting Full Levens at me! Cheers. AlfaFoxtrot — AlfaFoxtrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• keep article I have played this game (but called quick draw) in the past, it was a minor craze in my form at one point, it definitely is a real game i can assure you. I think just because it doesnt have any sources doesnt mean it should get automatic deletion, surely? So it might not be played by many people, but it obviously does exist, I've played it myself!! Who knows, perhaps more people might start playing it if the rules, etc, are left on here for other people to see. It really is a brilliant game, much less monotonous than many other card games I have played. Rich burger55 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) — Rich burger55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.