Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four flushing


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Four flushing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dictdef, with a list of uncited usages in popular culture. Mikeblas (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) -
 * Keep - In my opinion the article should have been tagged for expansion and references, not nominated for deletion, although the nomination is certainly in good faith, as the article is currently in the state Mikeblas describes. There certainly seems to be plenty of material to create a full-fledged encyclopedic article out of this., , . &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a link in the article to the Wiktionary entry, which could well be expanded to include the examples cited in this article. I find it hard to see that anything could be added to the article that would not belong in Wiktionary. Obviously a Google search turns up many websites, books etc. that use the term, but do they add anything other than a description of the origin of the term and examples of current usage? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A dicdef farsed out with a list of occurrences of the term in pop culture—this manages to violate both WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTDIR. I'm not seeing anything in LinguistAtLarge's searches but more dictionary material and more simple uses of the terms. Deor (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The occurances of the term simply specify that Wikipedia is not the OED. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am finding a lot of mention/discussion of this term.  It seems a lot more mainstream than a lot of esoteric topics that are (rightly) included in wikipedia.  Sources:, , .  Language associated with card games has been well-studied and this expression is no exception.  Not saying the page should be very big--but I would rather have a small page, about the size of the current one but perhaps better sourced, than have no page.  Cazort (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep significant cultural concept, not just a word. There are probably thousands of examples in literature, besides the use otherwise. Many (if not most) of the frequently occuring common noun in Wiktionary  can become Wikipedia articles if enough content is added. DGG (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have completely rewritten the article from the perspective of the notable and verifiable poker hand the "four flush". After keeping this article, a merger with list of poker hands can be discussed. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Draw (poker) would be a better target for merging. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep following Linguist's revisions. The arguments for deletion simply no longer apply.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on comments from DGG and revision by LinguistAtLarge. But I wish we had some way of automatically synchronizing articles on words between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Maybe an infobox of some kind? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep more than a dicdef  Chzz  ►  16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to "Four flush". The poker hand, its history, and its influence on slang are documented, but Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a pop-culture concordance. WillOakland (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2009 (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.