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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge

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

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies entirely on the publication itself to source the information. No hits in google scholar, and nothing viewable in google books with WP:SIGCOV although there were hits without viewable pages and a few non-notable hits. With zero secondary sources on this book, it fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. Hits in a search is listed as an argument to avoid at AFD. Those could all be passing mentions, or even advertisements for the book paid for by the publisher. I also don't have access to newspapers.com. If you find anything containing WP:SIGCOV in those sources by all means share it here or better yet add them to the article.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those books where there's almost certainly SIGCOV somewhere but it's cited so often it's a nightmare to find. Nevertheless, after a search: there is an entry with sigcov in multiple books on "The Best Reference Books" [1] [2] (with different content). Also this newspaper review [3]. Willing to bet there is far far more, but there are as mentioned above 3000+ (!) mentions of it. Searching will likely be a pain, because this book is cited constantly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA Thanks for these. We can only count The Best Reference Books as one source as they are the same publication even if the content is different. I'll take your word on the newspapers.com source. Please add these if you are able as the article currently only cites the book itself. We just need one more good review from a different publication (to satisfy the rule of three) and I think WP:NBOOK/WP:SIGCOV would be met and I'll happily withdraw at that point. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clipped the source noted above by PARAKANYAA. Here are some others [4][5][6][7] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the standard reference work on the game, and I'm sure there must be plenty of references to it to be found in bridge books and magazines. I'll see what I can find. Meanwhile putting in some cn tags might be a better approach than over-hasty deletion. JH (talk page) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhall1 This is a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument which is a discredited argument at AFD. We require the production of specific evidence. If there are sources, produce them.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I would, I've been searching, and have found a few sources which I will be adding to the article. My first thought was to look in the New York Times, as one of the few newspapers that has a freely available, online archive. I found four references, but then I realised that three of them were from the long period when Alan Truscott wrote their bridge columns and, as an editor of the OEoB, I suppose his comments on it aren't allowable. I do have a few other sources to include, though. JH (talk page) 08:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added four independent citations to the article. I wasn't sure where best to put them in the article, so please feel free to move them. The first two are lifted from List of contract bridge books. Unfortunately since the ABTA citation was added to that article, the cited document has become only available to ABTA members, and I wasn't prepared to shell out $75 to join, so I've had to resort to the Wayback Machine. And the citation given for the ACBL survey was rather lacking in details, so I had to invent a title to stop the "cite journal" template throwing up an error. (Incidentally quite a few of the pre-existing citations throw up warnings or errors.) I'm assuming that those who have come up with further citations will add them themselves. JH (talk page) 19:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (first edition, 1964) is referenced in the bibliography by Bourke and Sugden on page 145 as follows:

A massive work that is an essential reference for any Bridge player. The work derives some of its structure from both the The Whist Reference Book by William Mill Butler, and Ely Culbertson's, The Encyclopedia of Bridge. A wonderful work from any angle. The updates have been relatively timely. The decision to have a separate section on biographies and tournaments, taken by Tom Smith, was a good one. The sixth edition has a comprehensive bibliography prepared by Tim Bourke.

— per Bourke, Tim; Sugden, John (2010). Bridge Books in English from 1886-2010: an annotated bibliography. Cheltenham, England: Bridge Book Buffs. ISBN 978-0-9566576-0-2.
 Newwhist (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2025 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Official_Encyclopedia_of_Bridge
No tags for this post.