Not that I disagree with anything about the nature of those games, but your narrow usage of a word poker is wrong.
I even checked the Wikipedia article about Poker and there is a quote very similar to my wording:
"Other games that use poker hand rankings may likewise be referred to as poker."
Refrain from using quotes unless you are actually quoting something that someone has said word for word. One good aspect of quoting the actual words someone has said is that it can act as a sanity check against potential misinterpretations you might have made.
The actual quote, word for word is "I also don't think this can be called Poker, really."
There is nothing suggesting a tone of authority, on the contrary this is someone explicitly sharing their own opinion on the matter.
> You said "you can't call it poker" with a tone of an authority.
This is a misquote, if I ever saw one.
What I've actually written (emphasis added): "I also don't think this can be called Poker, really."
In other words, this is my personal line of thought, with the argument given in the next sentence, and "really" means "to some extent it can, but not to the full".
Well, it's my opinion based on the assumption that players used to specific common card games under the moniker might be disappointed when a new game with the same name lacks an essential component (and it's not cards).
Naming things is hard but there's no hard limits for the expansive approach, you can call all card games or all 5-things-games Poker. Your mileage as to communication with other people may vary, though.
Where we're disagreeing is at how we're seeing what's conventional.