Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace of Coins


 * 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Three of Cups

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This is one of many articles on individual tarot cards in the "minor arcana" which many feel will never become anything more than a stub.Smiloid 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
 * Ace of Wands (Tarot card)
 * Eight of Wands
 * Five of Wands
 * Four of Wands
 * King of Wands
 * Knight of Wands
 * Nine of Wands
 * Page of Wands
 * Queen of Wands (Tarot card)
 * Seven of Wands
 * Six of Wands
 * Ten of Wands
 * Three of Wands
 * Two of Wands
 * Ace of Swords
 * Eight of Swords
 * Five of Swords
 * Four of Swords
 * King of Swords
 * Knight of Swords
 * Knight of Swords (Tarot card)
 * Nine of Swords
 * Page of Swords
 * Queen of Swords
 * Seven of Swords
 * Six of Swords
 * Ten of Swords
 * Three of Swords
 * Two of Swords
 * Ace of Cups
 * Eight of Cups
 * Five of Cups
 * Four of Cups
 * King of Cups
 * Knight of Cups
 * Nine of Cups
 * Page of Cups
 * Queen of Cups
 * Seven of Cups
 * Six of Cups
 * Ten of Cups
 * Three of Cups
 * Two of Cups
 * Ace of Coins
 * Eight of Coins
 * Five of Coins
 * Four of Coins
 * King of Coins
 * Knight of Coins
 * Nine of Coins
 * Page of Coins
 * Queen of Coins
 * Seven of Coins
 * Six of Coins
 * Ten of Coins
 * Three of Coins
 * Two of Coins
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Either Merge All of each suit into a single article under the name of the suit (i.e. Cups (Tarot)) or delete all. Otto4711 15:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all, and judging from your User talk page and some other comments on talk pages, I'd almost call this bad faith, using AfD to try and circumvent discussion. There's nothing wrong with stubs, so long as they're sourced, and they can absolutely be added to. Besides, most people are going to be looking for the "mystical" interpretation of these cards when they look them up.  If there are other uses for these cards as you claim, then add them to the article, but just because you're a skeptic doesn't mean you need to declare war against the tarot.  We're looking for verifiability, not truth, and the tarot is verifiable.  --UsaSatsui 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all With literally centuries worth of books written about the tarot, and more arriving all the time, it seems to me that an article should be possible for every card and its various meanings and symbolism. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Notable, sourcable, and moderately sourced for stubs. If not, merge to some sort of aggregation, but there's absolutely no reason to delete. (|--   UlT i MuS  16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aggregate into suits. Cups (Tarot), Wands (Tarot), etc. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all as per above. It may be arcana, but it's notable arcana, and as noted above, there's nothing wrong with stubs or short articles as long as the info is correct and notable. I won't lose sleep if the aggregate option is chosen, but I think suit-based articles have the potential to be too lengthy. 23skidoo 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge after AFD closes. By suits as suggested by PMC seems like a good idea.  And what's the story with the NPOV tags?Chunky Rice 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whadaya mean, as PMC suggested? I tell ya I get no respect, no respect at all. As far as the articles by suit being too long, none of the articles look to be more than a paragraph or two, some of which is duplicative, so merging shouldn't result in anything overly long. If one or more individual cards gets to be lengthy it can then be split out into its own article. Otto4711 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. My deepest apologies.  I completely agree.Chunky Rice 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to suits per Otto4711. DCEdwards1966 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into individual suits. Things like the Four of Clubs don't have their own articles, so why should Tarot cards? It makes little sense to have a series of individual articles on this subject when it can be handily addressed in four articles. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge by suit - The arcanas may be notable, but the cards themselves are not particularly notable independently of their meaning within the overall system. I agree with the nom. that even if likely interpretations were added (and thoroughly sourced) these individual entries would not amount to more than a mass of perpetual stubs. Concerns about the resulting articles being too long can be alleviated by concise editing, and maybe the use of a table.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * redirect to merged suits no need for individual articles, but the information is absolutely notable, referenced by innumerable published works in every bookstore I know of. the redirects would enable people searching for the tarot by card to find the merged lists.  69.210.52.60 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Minor Arcana. Distant second choice to merge by suit. The majority of the articles I looked at say nothing more than "The blah of blah is a Minor Arcana Tarot card." Αργυριου (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge by suits (or some other fashion). As per Αργυριου, my random sampling showed that several of these articles are little more than "Title is a tarot card. [[Image:Title]] ". Heavy, sourced articles can be split back out. Not a delete vote -- saberwyn 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all even though it goes against my every wikinstinct; they're far more likely to be expanded than the individual entries for each album by obscure bands we happily tolerate. Irides centi  22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all into a single article. Saranary 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. All of these are easily expandable into full articles. In fact, I shall prove that they can be - give me an hour or so, then have a look at (picking one at random) Ten of Cups, to see how these articles could look with a bit of TLC. AGrutness...wha?  01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked at your revision I still feel like all of the articles on the cards within the suits can be merged into a single article. Otto4711 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Just because a minor arcana tarot card is nothing but one of many pip cards in a game of tarot, it does not imply a lack of content related to the non-gaming side of the card. There is much content that can be added based upon the usage of a card for divination.  There is still more that can be added about the symbolism and background of the card.--P Todd 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Otto's MERGE proposal seems most reasonable. Also, to UsaSatsui This AfD is intended to promote discussion. Despite what Bill O'Reilly may have told you, there is no "war on tarot"  being conducted here. I think tarot is a fine card game played in France!  Seriously, I think Ptdecker is doing good faith work with the POV concerns. However,whatever POV issues I and a few others may have raised about games and divination are not related to this proposal.  My purpose is to see what the community here thinks we should do with all these stubs before any sort of work is to be done on them. Smiloid 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid if we MERGE, we will end up breaking them all out again sometime in the future. If they were merged even by suit, if each card was fully fleshed out as they should be the article would be huge.  I don't think there is a "war on tarot" (nice pun, Smiloid).  But, I do think by pure numbers there are many more users of tarot for esoteric purposes then users of the cards for game play.  Seems like a 50%/50% balanced bias towards game play is actually a bias away from the majority of physical people (just my opinion).--P Todd 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be fine to break them out again when that time comes. As of right now these cards are not in any way fleshed out. I think the authors of all these individual card articles have placed the cart before the horse (excuse cliché ). There is one article on one of the suits. The other 3 suits have been neglected. Articles on the parent class should have been created prior to all these articles on individual members. Also if you look closely, Knight of Swords has an exact clone. At the very least one of those two should be merged/deleted. Again this is not for the games/esoteric debate. I am simply raising a question as to how all these cards should be treated.Smiloid 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Otto into 4 articles on the suitsSmiloid 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All  There are multiple schools of thought and research regarding Tarot cards.  They can be viewed as historical cultural symbols, they are used by some philosophical systems as spiritual or meditative icons, they are used by many in various ways as so-called "divination tools" (in both formal and informal contexts), and they are used by some for playing of games.   Another consideration is that there are many systems of Tarot and the cards do not have the same meanings in each system.  If we merge the articles into one larger article, then it would be likely that the merged article will contain images and discussions of many cards and would quickly become be overly long.  So, although many of the individual articles are currently stubs, if we leave them be, Tarot enthusiasts and experts of all persepctives will populate the pages with interesting info.  Why do we need to be in a hurry about that?  Parzival418 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ought this to be transferred to a dedicated Tarot-Wiki, with a link to it from the main Tarot article ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep  all per above. - Denny 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all as per UsaSatsui and Andrew Lenahan. -kotra 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all and develop; the articles all are rudimentary, and refer to he same two sources. There certainly is a good deal more to included, but it hasn't been included so far. Unless there is a serious effort to expand them, they will be suitable for merging.DGG 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiCommons needs more "minor arcana" images. I could make a comment that the Waite 3 of Swords is a clone of the Sola Busca 3 of swords or the ribbon on the 2 of coins Waite deck was inspired by the ribbon that carries the card makers name and date eg "Conver 1760" but I think the lack of appropriate images is one factor hampering the development of these articles.Smiloid 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to coordinate efforts to improve these pages, please use the discussion page at Talk:Minor Arcana.
 * Keep all for several reasons tbe article on each card may be developed further. They all share origin but since one of them is different there has to be a story on how each one of them was designed and the meaning for different groups of people. --FateClub 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness's proof that the stubs can be developed into full-blown articles by themselves. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All, don't merge Each of these cards represents meaning in Tarot spreads. In fact, each card represents two meanings: one if the card is right-way up, and another of the card is reversed. These plus descriptions of the artistic symbolism from popular Tarot decks more than constitutes enough content for an article, and leaving these up as individual articles encourages that that work be done.
 * Merge all per suite - this has actually already been discussed at Talk:Minor Arcana, and i think it's safe to say most people there agree to a merge. It's just no one's bothered to actually do the merging yet... -- `/aksha 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.