Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker jargon

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poker jargon

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: You misterpret the rule here; it is meant to keep wikipedia from being cluttered with individual entries about words that aren't of general interest. But a single article on the technical jargon of a specific field of study is entirely appropriate and useful, and indeed necessary for many fields. LDC 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Highly notable and useful to many. PJM 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not about slang or idiom, it's about public information on a topic of interest to many. pat8722 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not a slang or idiom guide. --Terence Ong 05:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per PJM -- Arnzy | Talk 08:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. --Karnesky 06:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and relevant. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Strrange nomination as the cited passage clearly states such a page is useful. Obviously the article also allows us to not have dozens of minor articles on concepts that otherwise can be better explained in a context. 2005 09:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly useful. And. There are many many pages like it on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - incredibly useful page, also highly referenced (see What links here). Essexmutant 10:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's a very handy guide.--Mike Selinker 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per LDC. Many of the terms explained in this article are used in other articles on Wikipedia. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep this is an article about poker jargon with lots of examples, not many articles about individual poker terms. —siroχo 11:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -- MSchmahl 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful index to poker players. Hynca-Hooley 18:08, 28 February 2006 (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.