Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker psychology


 * 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 Poker strategy. Note: before initiating a fly-by delrev, please consider the following: The article evolved during this debate. Much of the debate centered around how to source and stubbify the article, where this was done, all those votes are given far less weight after-the-fact. After the action was taken, the new sourced stub looked to several of the participants like it was redundant to Poker Strategy. The concensus formed around redirecting there seems quite clear. This is a case where counting the bolded words from 6 feet away can mislead you to conclude that the closing admin got it wrong. Read carefully, please, before you object. JERRY talk contribs 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Poker psychology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Patent nonsense, unless I'm mistaken? There have been a dozen edits since 2002. this one must die. BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. (re:nonsense - No, patent nonsense is strings of random characters, bits of unrelated documents pasted together, and things like that. Things that don't make any sense.) This is an essay, which should be deleted in either case. Obviously unencyclopedic original research in essay tone, and we already have articles on poker strategy anyway - TheBilly Talk 11:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Keep as stub has been created. The topic could certainly merit an article if done right, but in this case there is zero here to act as a starting point, so "delete now without prejudice of a way better article being here someday" is my view... 2005 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (Changed to Keep below) agree with User:2005 psychology in poker is a major component of the game but the way the article is written, it offers very little in the subject and appears to be completely original research. was surprise to see that it has been around since 2002.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per 2005 above. A legitimate topic, but this short essay is not a useful starting point.  Lankiveil (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep And make into a stub until someone has time to write a real article. What's there now is nonsense, but replacing it with a one or two sentence stub that can be later expanded makes sense to do. Rray (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So why don't you do just that? Find a source that can be used to build an article and cite it in a short stub.  Be bold!  Show that what you want to be done can be done.  Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason you didn't. Just haven't gotten around to it. Although now, it seems like someone else has taken care of it. I'm already familiar with the "Be bold" link, thanks. Rray (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one exhorting the closing administrator to "make into a stub". You are.  As I said, the closing administrator isn't an edit-on-demand service.  If you want something made into a stub at AFD, be bold and do it yourself.  Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not "exhorting" anyone to do anything; I'm participating in the deletion discussion and expressing my opinion about what should be done with the article. As far as I know, I'm allowed to participate in the discussion without being obligated to actually do the work myself in any given time frame. Rray (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Doesn't seem to be nonsense, but certainly seems to be original research. Unless this can be linked to published info that defines this term.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Switch to neutral based on rewrite. I still have a slight reservation, but not as strongly as before.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rray. The nature of the game itself would suggest that a reasonable article could be written with proper sources on the subject (or the study of the subject). There are game theory elements as well. A short stub would be acceptable. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But since this isn't a short stub, it must be unacceptable. I reiterate the above: Find a source that can be used to build an article and cite it in a short stub.  The closing administrator isn't an edit-on-demand service. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Requiring cleanup, revision, rewriting, etc isn't a valid deletion reason. No one suggested that the closing administrator is an edit-on-demand service. Indicating that the article could be appropriately rewritten as a stub and kept is a valid contribution to the discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted. Rray (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * &hellip; and it implies, as I said, that if it hasn't been written, it isn't acceptable. And, on the contrary, you and xe both took the closing administrator to be an edit-on-demand service, you in as many words and and xe by adopting your rationale.  As for deletion rationales, you yourself said "What's there now is nonsense".  That is a deletion reason, per policy.  The closing administrator isn't an edit-on-demand service, and upon reading a rationale that says "It's nonsense.  But a good stub should be kept." will delete the article for being nonsense, unless you do as I said, put your edits where your discussion comments are, and create that good stub.  A boldfaced word doesn't magically make an argument into a keep argument.  Administrators read rationales.  Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about who should do what. I expressed my opinion about what should be done with the article, not who should do it. And someone here agreed and made the article into a stub, so the process worked just fine. Rray (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been updated as suggested above. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks good now. Maybe later it can be properly expanded a bit.--Pmedema (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mark as stub, and start expanding. Topic is notable, and very true, and easily sourced, I own numerous books on the psychology of poker players.  The most notable being "Beyond Tells".  Personally I will help expand this article if kept.  LessThanClippers (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the source changes that were made.▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment article quality is not the only factor to consider. We're not voting on whether an article is good, we're discussing whether it belongs on Wikipedia. We already have Poker strategy, Bluff (poker), Slow play (poker). Anything we could put here we could put on an existing poker strategy page. There is no worthwhile discussion to be had on "poker psychology" outside the context of strategy...and even if you argue that there is, a page should only be created as split once the strategy page gets unwieldy. This page is redundant. - TheBilly Talk 20:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject is partially covered in Poker strategy. I'd suggest merging, but there's no content currently in the Psychology article to merge.  PKT (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there are two source citations, which are useful. And given the titles of those sources, readers will probably try to look up the subject of poker psychology in the encyclopedia.  So why not merge? Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Poker strategy. Content can be expanded upon there until it becomes large enough to split for reasons of WP:SIZE. -Verdatum (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see where your coming from but the difference here is that Poker strategy's focus is on the game. Poker psychology's focus is on the player, their mind, their personalities, the psychology.  I feel that they are sufficiently different enough to have them separate.--Pmedema (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself states that "poker psychology" is part of Poker strategy! So this article is unnecessary, despite it inducing giggles in myself. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Being part of something else doesn't automatically make an article unnecessary. Texas holdem is a type of poker but warrants its own article separate from the main poker article. The Empire Strikes Back is part of the Star Wars series of movies, but it also has its own separate article from the article about the series of movies. In fact, thousands of articles exist which could theoretically be encompassed in an article about a broader subject. Rray (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but those are quite possibly the most ludicrously illogical comparisons I have ever heard. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They're more logical than the reasoning you gave to delete, but maybe we can just agree to disagree. :) I don't doubt that you mean well. Rray (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete there is no need for an article that's only content is "Psychology is a useful skill in the game of poker". The article Tell (poker) already does a great job of describing the usefulness of knowing human psychology in the game of poker. Teleomatic (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neogolism. I think the topic should be Game Theory, which is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Game theory is a totally different concept. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, very very different. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject is notable because of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. At least two books have been written about the psychology of poker. Being a neologism isn't a valid reason for deletion anyway, although I don't think this qualifies even as a neologism. Rray (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (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.