Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slang names for poker hands


 * 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 No consensus - it's clear to me that there's no community vision for what should happen to this article, yet widespread agreement that it has some value. Cheers, Wily D 14:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of slang names for poker hands

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A few concerns have come up recently about this article. First, it is more appropriate to wiktionary, as it just gives list of slang names. I believe there is some precedent for deleting list of slang articles. Second, whatever encyclopedic usefulness this article has is way overwhelmed by the ungodly amount of spam and vanity this article attracts. Developing an appropriate standard for inclusion has proved quite difficult. If you think we should keep the article, PLEASE suggest how we can objectively limit the scope of this article. Otherwise it becomes a maintenance nightmare. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Anything appropriate should be moved to Wiktionary. None of these terms are standard usage for technical terms that would appear in articles. List of poker terms acts as a glossary for technical terms in articles.  Wikipecia is WP:NOT a dictionary, or a slang or idiom guide. (There could be hundreds of more entries that are in common usage regionally all over the world that have a few reliable sources mentioning the use of the term.) 2005 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to disagree that this is dictionary type information, and I think it is the type of information an interested person might go to an encyclopedia to lookup. At present, the more obscure ones are explained, which prevents the article becoming too unwieldy.  Citi Cat  23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you be more explicit?  Why can't someone who's adding a vanity entry "explain" the name they just made up?  Why can't a linkfarm website do the same?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are infinatly many different poker slang terms regional, international etc., should be moved to dictionary or better still just deleted --Greatestrowerever 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that this is Wikipedia's 74th-most-viewed article, according to .  Λυδ α cιτγ  01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In large part because vanity edits are normally added and reverted several times every day! 2005 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be an anomaly. It doesn't appear on March's list,  April's list, or May's list --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also been around since 2001.  Λυδ α cιτγ  04:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I use the page all the time when I'm playing online poker. If this gets deleted it should be moved to wikitionary. 82.21.67.38
 * Comment I use it too. The problem with it is that it has become a shit magnet.  Look at the history - 99% of the past 500 edits are vanity garbage edits and reversions.  It shows up in my watchlist more than any other article.  Those of us who edit it regulary have been unable to come up with a threshold for inclusion of terms. If you have any ideas, please suggest! SmartGuy 04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should limit the list to those phrases heard on notable televised poker tournaments? 82.21.67.38 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I am fairly knowledgable in poker and poker slang, and have not heard of many of these names. However, some of them can be useful to new players.  Having a good basic knowledge of card room slang helps a lot when first starting.  I agree that the terms should be moved to Wiktionary if the article is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iowa13 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep It's useful, and there's no reason an encyclopedia can't include such lists. I've added on citations from two more websites, and I'm sure there are more out there to get the rest of the terms cited.  Λυδ α cιτγ  04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason is it is Wikipedia policy to not have such lists. Your inclusion of a useless website in terms of multiple citations is a perfect example of what a garbage dump this sort of inappropriate list is.  There are thousands of minor websites that would could be cited for literally many thousands more vanity terms.  Such terms have no place in an encyclopedia, and just because something can be cited by some anonymous website doesn't mean it should.  Wikipecia is not a slang or idiom guide, period.  But as long as the article festers here, we certainly are not going let every trivial website in the world come along and cite specific words in the text. 2005 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I've added it to my watchlist; spam and vanity additions should never be a reason to delete a good article.  Λυδ α cιτγ  04:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But the lack of objective inclusion criteria for a list certainly is. Mere citation isn't sufficient because of the spam/vanity problem.  Can you think of one that won't make it impossible to prevent spam/vanity additions?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of people have it in their watchlists, so that isn't a relevant issue here. The point is policy says such articles should not exist, and the fact this one exists makes it a nuisance to regular editors trying to care for the subject space. 2005 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding it to my watchlist was an attempt to help with kzollman's worry that "whatever encyclopedic usefulness this article has is way overwhelmed by the ungodly amount of spam and vanity this article attracts". Kevin, why doesn't a citation requirement preclude spam additions - because users will link to their own websites? If so, just establish that citations should not be from personal pages. That said, 2005 does appear to be correct that per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide"; it seems like this article falls squarely under that definition, so I must reluctantly switch my vote to delete / move to Wiktionary. Does Wiktionary have such lists?  Λυδ α cιτγ  06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is that making it clear what counts as a "personal website" is very difficult. Because of the (very liberal) policies of revenue sharing by online poker sites, there are literally millions of link farm/low content poker websites.  I think it's exceedingly difficult to establish a clear line between good and bad websites in this arena, and so any standard will be arbitrary and unenforcible.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - And move to the Wiktionary. It's no less useful if it's located in the appropriate place. Rray 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just requested semi-protection for this article so that it can later be moved to Wiktionary without all of the garbage edits. SmartGuy 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 21:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not worth the maintenance effort, as this material is mostly trivial and in my opinion doesn't serve any practical reference purpose.  would wikibooks be a better home than wiktionary? &mdash;Kymacpherson 04:20, 9 July 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.