Talk:Card shark

Recent removal
I removed the paragraph that distinguished between card sharks and card sharps because it contradicts five sources cited at card sharp and was already tagged as dubious. -- Thin boy  00  @329, i.e. 06:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good move. This should really just redirect to card sharp anyway.  The AfD and DRv on the matter only concluded that that there wasn't a consensus to outright delete the card shark stub.  The two most obvious courses for getting rid of the POV fork is to simply change this page back to a redirect to card sharp or maybe even prod it and if the one (I think) editor who revertwarred it back into an unsourced stub doesn't deal with the prod, then it will be deleted, can be made into a redirect, and there will no longer be any page history here that anyone at AfD/DRv would care about. It is probably better to go with just changing it back into a redir, plain and simple, but I don't think I want to do this myself, because I've already been accused of being "obsessive" about the matter (a label I disagree with; insisting on sources and doing routine cleanup work like merging redundant articles is hardly obsessive, it's simply business as usual around here). Either you (Thinboy00) could do it, or someone else who understood the problem at the original AfD could (such as Brewcrewer, Verdatum, SilkTork or Pomte). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 08:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A Prod is inappropriate as this has been through an AfD. A straight redirect to card sharp is also inappropriate as there is known to be issues with that. The course open is to announce a redirect elsewhere and see if there are objections. I have suggested a redirect to Glossary of poker terms. If there are no objections to this, the merge can take place because the tag has been up for over a week.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with redirecting it back to card sharp at all, because opponents of this idea have had over two weeks in which to come up with sources to back their position, and have failed to do so. The AfD did nothing but decline to delete the POV fork under deletion policy on the basis that the separation might be sourceable.  Has not proven to be.  I.e., there is nothing at all (as the DRv closer noted) preventing a post-AfD/DRv finding after further discussion that this should in fact be a redirect to the already-merged article. If anyone thinks even more time needs to be provided for the separate article supporter(s) to find sources, well, okay, but I see zero activity on their part thus far. And one person doing an angry revert cannot hold up until the end of time a consensus or even simply WP:BOLDness to do something he disagrees with but can't sourcedly oppose.
 * I won't keel over and die if this redirs to the glossary (which after all would be better than having a POV-forked stub), I just think it makes more sense to redir it to the other article, which has more depth than the glossary entry. I suppose if it is redired to the glossary and no one freaks and reverts it, it could later be decided to redir instead to the other article, since it is a matter for discussion at the glossary's talk page, not this one, what should and shouldn't redirect to the glossary.  It could also be restoratively redired back to card sharp right now simply as matter of WP:BRD; if no one reverts it again, then it will stick this time and everyone can move on to something more interesting. I strongly suspect that the editwarrior pushing for the POV fork isn't paying any attention any longer anyway; it was a just a "fun" trolling exercise along with all the personal attacks and other issues that almost got this person blocked, and he participated in neither the AfD nor the DRv, nor has posted here, at card sharp or anywhere else, on this matter since the merge.  When ignored, trolls simply go away most of the time.  Editors with legitimate concerns backed with actual evidence generally do not.
 * (As an aside, I'm unaware of any policy that something that has survived AfD is automatically immune to the PROD tag. If there is, where is it?  There shouldn't be, as the processes are different as are their rationales.  AfD is for removal of articles per WP:DP, while prod is for removal of articles that no one cares enough about to even remove the prod tag from, much less source and improve. There's isn't any particular connection between these two concepts at all; many things could survive AfD because they don't violate any policies or deletion-actionable guidelines, yet still be driftwood that does not serve our readers and which can safely be removed until someone does actually care enough to write a real article about them.)
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are unaware of any policy that AfD'ed articles are immune to PROD? The first sentence of PROD says "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate" (emphasis mine) and if that's not clear enough, the third paragraph says "Articles that: * Have previously been proposed for deletion * Have previously been undeleted * Have been discussed on AfD are not candidates for ."--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)