Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table talk (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 delete. ✗ plicit  23:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Table talk (cards)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article has been tagged as unsourced for 14 years. The topic is poorly written and not notable enough for a separate article. If it is a genuine card game term - and as a researcher in this field I have yet to come across it in any game description or general glossary - it could just be added to our own glossary of card game terms as long as it can be properly cited. Bermicourt (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a common definition but A) sourcing seems scarce and B) I don't think we need an article. merge as suggested by the OP. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I am familiar with this term in the context of tabletop games (rpgs, board games) but the meaning is somewhat different. I am not sure if the meaning I am familiar with is notable (perhaps, here's one source: ) but given the current state of the nominated article (no refereces at at all), I don't think there is anything to rescue and merge into the topic I mention, which doesn't exist anyway (table talk (games)?). I explicitly object to merge given said lack of references (this can be WP:OR or WP:HOAX). PS. There is also a concept of Table-talk Role Playing Game (TRPG) mentioned in some sources, popular in Japan that we don't have an article about, either.
 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I am familiar with this term by this definition, but have no idea where one might find actual RS description, let alone commentary. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unrefed stub, agree with, there's nothing to merge, as the article is entirely WP:OR with no content being refed at all, I wasn't able to find any more refs bases on a search. So I understand the WP:ATD rationales but disagree strongly given the lack of any refs at all, ping me if refs are found, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2022 (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.