Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card stacking

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Card stacking[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just the definition of a common expression. Good information on its meaning, but as such belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely not a word that belongs in a dictionary, but an encyclopedia like this, as it is about technique that is utilized by the media and politicians (along with scam artists). I have gone ahead and added references to the article to show this. I feel that it is an extremely notable subject. Silver seren^C 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article is much improved. I think it is now a borderline case. I'm not going to withdraw the nomination since still the article is much more about the expression than the thing. For instance there is no information on if it is effective or not, and things like that. Borock (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out the fact that the state of the article is completely irrelevant to its notability. The article could be a single line with no references, but that wouldn't change the obvious notability of the subject from the numerous references that have the possibility of being added. They do not have to be added to confirm notability, they just have to be out there to show that the subject is notable. Silver seren^C 19:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is more than just a definition. The article has valid content that wouldn't all fit in a simple dictionary definition. Dream Focus 18:38, 24 November 2010 (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.