Talk:Playing cards

Proposed merge of Kazakh playing cards into Playing cards
There is nothing in here, in my opinion, that cannot be covered in Playing cards - and given the content herein, I think we can best put that in there for now.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 08:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's plenty of information at Kazakh playing cards that's specific to that deck, and four paragraphs of it. Pushing that material to Playing card would give this one deck undue weight in the context of that article. Besides that, why did you propose a merger to a redirect instead of to Playing card, the article that already exists? Largoplazo (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Largoplazo. Wikipedia already has at least 10 other similar articles on specific national or regional styles of playing cards (see "See also" on main page), but beyond it being, evidently, an accepted practice, it is appropriate: details of difference and regional history are better spun off from the "genus" article to the "species" articles, as is done with Kazakh playing cards. Phil wink (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: ...But now that I look at this article again, is it notable? If this is an actual national variant, then yes, I certainly think so. But it looks to me more like a novelty deck that you might buy at a tourist shop, in which case is it any more notable than the Hot Studs of Las Vegas card deck that ... uh ... a friend told me about? This doesn't change my !vote: if it's notable, then I still think it should be independent; if not, AfD. Phil wink (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Kazakh playing cards should be deleted. That article is stealth advertising for a novelty deck. It is not notable in any way.--Countakeshi (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the inappropriate external link and toned down the enthusiasm in the article. The rest of it appears to describe a cultural style of card deck, which (assuming verifiability notability) is a suitable topic for coverage even if it's a product that's sold. You seem to think, however, that it's a modern novelty deck with no cultural validity that would make it comparable to, say, Spanish playing cards or Italian playing cards. Can you clarify the basis for your remarks? Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I've found the publisher's site, which pretty definitively proves that these are not historical, and are therefore non-notable. It states: "Yurt, a traditional portable dwelling, has always been a symbol of home and natural freedom for millions of people around the world. ¶ It inspired us to create Qazaq deck, first in the series of Yurt playing cards, so you can discover the unique kinship names and family ties based on descent and marriage. ¶ Yurt Oü established in 2018." I think this is a very nice-looking deck, and it may well reflect national symbols, but it's no more a national deck than if I published one with American flags, Eagles, Hamburgers, and Guns as suits. Phil wink (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that follow-up. I will certainly leave the current PROD tag in place. Largoplazo (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, someone else removed it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have started a proposal to delete Kazakh playing cards.--Countakeshi (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)