Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Origin of Playing Cards


 * 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   redirect to Playing card. L Faraone  03:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Origin of Playing Cards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A well written article about the chinese origin of playing cards, not about the article written by William Henry Wilkinson. It looks like a synthesis of a number of sources describing the possible origin of playing cards from China. Wilkinson's article seems nonnotable and the current state of the article seems to be a coatrack for the Chinese origin of playing cards. Curb Chain (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom or redirect to Playing card, with opens with "Playing cards were invented in ancient China." --BDD (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and Start again -- I note that the article claims to derive from 1911 Britannica, but we really cannot have an article on an article, other than exceptionally important ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Playing card This article is a bit puzzling because it's ostensibly about a paper published in American Anthropologist back in 1895. However, much of the article's body contains a more general discussion of the origin and early history of playing cards and cites several other works, some of which were published after 1895.  A WP article dedicated to a single journal paper normally would fail WP:GNG, but this article is something of a hybrid as it contains a fair bit of content that goes beyond the scope of that paper.  One option would to rename the article Origin of playing cards, generalize the lead so that it adequately summarizes the subject (not a particular paper written about the subject), and make other edits accordingly.  However, the article's body causes me concern:  In the section entitled "European similarities", a Google search on "Playing cards first appeared in Europe in the 1370s......making them luxury goods for the rich" revealed that this entire phrase appears in the current edition of Britannica, but NOT in the corresponding entry in the public domain 1911 edition.  Moreover, the article cites references published in the years 1924 and 1927, but nothing more recently than that.  I'm concerned that substantial parts of the text may have been copied from an edition of Britannica published sometime after 1922, which would therefore still be copyright in the United States (i.e. possible WP:COPYVIO).  Without the potential copyvio issue, the article may have been salvageable, but I'm thinking that it's just better to delete and let the editors at Playing card decide if a new WP:SPINOFF should be created for the origin of playing cards.  However, the American Anthropologist article is public domain in the United States (published 1895), so it could be transcribed to Wikisource. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to Playing card for a chance in the future. Dejakh ~ User talk:Dejakh•Special:Contributions/Dejakh 19:42, 27 March 2013 (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.