Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nut hand

Add links
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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nut hand[edit]

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

Nut hand (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)

No footnotes for most of the content, references to a few websites on etymology or poker glossaries (two out of three seem to be dead or broken anyway). The article doesn't make the case for its topic being notable, and my BEFORE just shows some mentions in passing. Suggest redirecting to Glossary_of_poker_terms#N. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 05:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I won't repeat siro's masterful source analysis, which is convincing. I will note that nom's claim that the article doesn't make a case for its notability is irrelevant. Notability isn't related to the state of sources in an article but to the availability of sources in the world. In addition to Siro's work a quick Gscholar search shows there are many technical and mathematical discussions of this key concept. Central and Adams (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. The so-called "sigcov" isn't. You want to have the nuts, or better yet, the absolute nuts, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a guide, but it can most certainly cite reliable guides that explain why a concept is notable or verify facts necessary to the article. We cite textbooks frequently, we cite independent software texts, etc. Even the article as it stands, such as it needs to be improved, is not a guide. Game-related concepts can be notable without requiring our article to be a guide on how to use the concept, compare this article to en passant, checkmate, batting (baseball), three pointer, field goal, etc. —siroχo 10:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom - seems to be a WP:DICDEF. I don't see sigcov in the links either - just usage of the term, meaning that adding them to the article would be WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given they are all referring to the same concept, we can attribute and quote without drawing further conclusions of our own to avoid issues of SYNTH. —siroχo 10:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the term is too complex to be a strict dictionary definition (at the least nuts vs. absolute nuts, vs. the (mis)use as "best hand possible hand right now" needs a lot of words and probably examples). And the GNG is pretty easily met as almost any poker strategy book is going to spend time explaining the concept and how it impacts strategy (e.g. [1]). And there are tons of such books. (As a note, in context it's generally just called "the nuts" rather than "nut hand"). Hobit (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a standard encyclopedic term. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Torn between Keeping this article or Redirecting it with a dispute over the value of sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect (or selectively merge) to glossary of poker terms. Doesn't really need more than a paragraph. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Imo it probably needs at least 2 or 3. The nuts, absolute nuts, and current nuts would all need to be covered. A bit about how they are each played and the etymology should also be there given we have plenty of RSes that cover those topics... that's going to be more than a paragraph... Hobit (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTGUIDE is NOTSALIENT. The sources discussed above contain mathematically based definitions and analyses of the topics mentioned by Hobit rather than pure unanalyzed advice such as one would expect in a guide. Central and Adams (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a very detailed article on checkmate. Do you feel that runs afoul of NOTGUIDE? Again a lot of sources exist and have been provided. Hobit (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apologies in advance, I don't mean to BLUDGEON, but I'm truly confused by the direction this discussion has gone at this point. I refer to articles like Check (chess) or Checkmate, which are reasonable analogues in chess. Those could be redirected to a glossary, and those rely on guides and even provide a small amount of guidance as is necessary for understanding of the concept. But we recognize these concepts as being notable in their own right such that a mere glossary entry would not do them service. This concept has been a foundational aspect of poker for decades, and is constantly referenced in many forms of literature related to poker. You'll rarely find a poker broadcast without the announcers mentioning the concept. Beyond what folks above have mentioned about in-depth analysis beyond what a guide would offer, the term and concept are both analyzed beyond the game, and beyond poker culture itself, for example:
  • Here's a cultural analysis of the terms influence at poker tables [2]
  • Here's a text that explains the concept in-depth, and then uses the concept to analyze public policy decisions [3]
Even within the game aspect of Poker, there's also substantial disagreement in how to play the nuts -- when to bet or raise, and how much. (just one quick example from proquest [4]) We can provide tertiary coverage of this concept highlighting the disagreement among professionals and those who have analyzed the game, beyond what glossary entry could accomplish. If it seems like I've only provided a handful of sources in this discussion, I apologize, I have yet to conduct an exhaustive search for sources, because it's infeasible given how many reliable sources exist for the subject.
I cannot see how we'd be improving the state of Wikipedia by redirecting this article.
—siroχo 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a counterpoint - considering I can't access those sources apart from the abstract, where the term is not used at all in either article - a Google Scholar search brings up precious little about the term, about 16 hits when adding the word poker, mostly definitional, excluding one about plywood. Considering the discussion is about whether this should have a stand-alone page, that it's at the moment completely definitional, and fits neatly into a glossary of poker terms, I see no great loss from redirecting this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective and explanation, I have a better understanding of the argument now. FYI, you should have access to ProQuest via WP:TWL —siroχo 07:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a case for WP:TNT. If you found some good sources, perhaps you could try to rewrite this from scratch. What we have is a mess with three footnotes including "Etymology Dictionary's entry for "nuts" and "The Phrase Finder's entry for "dog's bollocks""." Seriously... a classic case of TNT needed, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would have no issue if someone wants to WP:HEY the page or recreate a better page if this isn't kept, conditional on better sourcing being found. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think comparing this to entries like Check (chess) or Checkmate is useful, because both of those have extended use outside chess, even though their meaning derives from the game. On the other hand, one could argue that the use of "nuts" has an analogue in daily speech - "Have you seen Dave's new car. It's the nuts!" which goes back further than the article's claim of late 20th century (useful link with examples back to 1917 here. So there's an argument that the article could be expanded on that basis, since there is at least some real-world link. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we sure the usage of that phrase in speech has to do with poker and not ... other things? An etymology dictionary talks about it being slang for dual male body parts. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Article may meet GNG per siro's source assessment, but the citations throughout the article are far too sparse. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, WP:N is the bar for inclusion of a topic. And that is about sources that exist, not ones in the article. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "the topic is notable but the article is far from being in an acceptable state at the moment" precisely what draftifying is for? TompaDompa (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see WP:TNT. Sometimes starting from scratch is easier than telling folks - go and improve this mess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not in a great state but it is better than nothing. A redirect to glossary of poker terms with a selective merge is also acceptable, but not in my opinion strictly necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but still no agreement in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Like siroxo, I'm a little confused that this discussion is still ongoing. WP:GNG is clearly met, so the topic is appropriately notable. This does not need to be draftified to be cleaned up either. There seems to be no real policy (or guideline) basis for redirecting or deleting this, so why would we? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The folk etymology is shaky... but the first part of the article stands alone well, and per the analysis of notability above, it seems like this is an easy call to keep it. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 22 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nut_hand&oldid=1171769625"