Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of poker terms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ~ Arjun 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of poker terms[edit]
- List of poker terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
"Wikpedia is not a usage or slang guide". Lists of words or dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but are appropriate for Wiktionary. Per common practice, this word list of topic-related terminology is now transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Poker terminology and is ready to be deleted.
Please see precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surfing terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatre terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs, etc. Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This has been dealt with before. The article is not a slang guide. It covers in a topical way numerous subjects that are referenced throughout the encyclopedia. If this article was deleted dozens of stubs would have to be created otherwise many dozens of articles would make no sense. Please withdraw the nomination. The prior discussion was an overwhelming keep Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poker_jargon 2005 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a misconception often repeated by those who never took the time to get to know Wiktionary. Linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia; I did it above. If this article was deleted, all you would have to do is link to the exact same entry at Wiktionary. In addition, ease-of-use arguments don't argue for something being encyclopedic anyway. Wouldn't it be easier if how-tos, source material, galleries of images, and lists of quotes were articles here? Does that make them encyclopedic? Please offer a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic and not a dictionary definition list. Dmcdevit·t 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's self-evident. Did you even read it? It does not appear so. Some of the entries are definition sorts of things, but others are stubs explaining a practice or usage, not definitions. As for "Linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia" then lets not needlessly create work for people for absolutely zero benefit. There is no rationale for messing with a very useful and sensible article, and certainly none for why dozens of stubs should be created. 2005 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make sense; you just replied by repeating the same fallacious arguments. 1) If linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia, which it is, then what needless work are you talking about? It's easy. 2) What do you mean by saying that it's not just a list of definitions, but some explain usage? That's what dictionaries are for. Please note the first sentence of WP:WINAD: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." If it is only about the word usage, it is not encyclopedic. 3) I have no idea what dozens of articles you think would need to be created. As I noted, a link to Wiktionary would suffice. You're acting like the projects are existing at cross purposes here, when really they are intended to enhance each other. 4) Please actually provide a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic beyond it being self-evident, accusing me of not reading it, or saying it's useful. In fact, I think you would benefit from reading WP:USEFUL. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out the list is not only dictionary definitions, but also clarifies several smaller concepts that would not merit an article. It's not just about the word usage. I also have a question: How, exactly, are we going to have a link to Wictionary if the article is deleted? --UsaSatsui 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is already at Wiktionary. I linked it in the nomination; it's at Appendix:Poker terminology. There is absolutely no difference in difficulty in linking to the Wiktionary article. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article already at Wiktionary is months out of date, unindexed, and a virtual solid mass of redlinks. Also no one looking for anything from it will find it if they search here (which is the more likely scenario)--Invisifan 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said the first time you said that, what's your point? Wiktionary is a wiki too. It's "up to date" now. You could ave done that yourself instead of complaining here. I fail to see how that has any bearing on whether the article is encyclopedic or not; you're bringing up red herrings. Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that even if this list is better as an Appendix in Wiktionary than a list here moving it is not as simple as copying the article from here to there -- it would need to be completely overhauled to have the appropriate links point back here (a huge job in itself if done correctly since many should really point to Wiktionary entries which may not exist r be the exact spelling/capitalization), and worse everything in Wikipedia that "links here" needs to be fixed (a simple redirect won't work even if you could properly redirect transwiki since many of the references are to anchor which can't even work as a secondary redirect in the same wiki). So a massive amount of work needs to be done 'during the move, and you seem utterly uninterested in making that effort (personally I have no interest in poker per se, and better things to do). if/when the WT appendix is fully functional as well as up to date & all the relevant links to this article are pointing there. then I'd support deleting this article. --Invisifan 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said the first time you said that, what's your point? Wiktionary is a wiki too. It's "up to date" now. You could ave done that yourself instead of complaining here. I fail to see how that has any bearing on whether the article is encyclopedic or not; you're bringing up red herrings. Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article already at Wiktionary is months out of date, unindexed, and a virtual solid mass of redlinks. Also no one looking for anything from it will find it if they search here (which is the more likely scenario)--Invisifan 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is already at Wiktionary. I linked it in the nomination; it's at Appendix:Poker terminology. There is absolutely no difference in difficulty in linking to the Wiktionary article. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out the list is not only dictionary definitions, but also clarifies several smaller concepts that would not merit an article. It's not just about the word usage. I also have a question: How, exactly, are we going to have a link to Wictionary if the article is deleted? --UsaSatsui 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make sense; you just replied by repeating the same fallacious arguments. 1) If linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia, which it is, then what needless work are you talking about? It's easy. 2) What do you mean by saying that it's not just a list of definitions, but some explain usage? That's what dictionaries are for. Please note the first sentence of WP:WINAD: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a jargon or usage guide." If it is only about the word usage, it is not encyclopedic. 3) I have no idea what dozens of articles you think would need to be created. As I noted, a link to Wiktionary would suffice. You're acting like the projects are existing at cross purposes here, when really they are intended to enhance each other. 4) Please actually provide a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic beyond it being self-evident, accusing me of not reading it, or saying it's useful. In fact, I think you would benefit from reading WP:USEFUL. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's self-evident. Did you even read it? It does not appear so. Some of the entries are definition sorts of things, but others are stubs explaining a practice or usage, not definitions. As for "Linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia" then lets not needlessly create work for people for absolutely zero benefit. There is no rationale for messing with a very useful and sensible article, and certainly none for why dozens of stubs should be created. 2005 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a misconception often repeated by those who never took the time to get to know Wiktionary. Linking to Wiktionary is as easy as linking to Wikipedia; I did it above. If this article was deleted, all you would have to do is link to the exact same entry at Wiktionary. In addition, ease-of-use arguments don't argue for something being encyclopedic anyway. Wouldn't it be easier if how-tos, source material, galleries of images, and lists of quotes were articles here? Does that make them encyclopedic? Please offer a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic and not a dictionary definition list. Dmcdevit·t 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is one of those lists of terms that is needed. It's much like List of baseball jargon. Very complex activity that cannot be handled with just one article. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As per previous comments and noting that in any event wrt wikt:Appendix:Poker terminology which is already seriously out of date & a mass of redlinks, it is certainly NOT ready to be deleted --Invisifan 13:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Useful list. For the record, here's the old AFD. --UsaSatsui 16:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Poker terminology is complex and impossible to explain inline to the main article --frothT 19:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:2005 and User:Invisifan -- Black Falcon 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOT a dictionary. This is pretty clearly a list of word definitions. Not one person here has argued why this entry is encyclopedic and should be kept. Instead the argument seems to be "but we need to access the material." Well, you can access the material because it is already on wikitionary, and linking to this list of definitions takes all of one template, {{wiktionary}}. pschemp | talk 20:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WoohookittyWoohoo! & frothT. Mathmo Talk 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. When in doubt, don't delete. Vidor 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep no valid reason to delete it. Poker terminology is a bit too complex for Wiktionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuyAMountain (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, as this a useful list, not a slang guide. This is one of the first articles that got me involved with Wikipedia, and I continue to refer back to it rather frequently. (jarbarf) 17:31, 12 February 2007 (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.