Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluffing (Yazza)

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 DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bluffing (Yazza)

Delete , Original research, vanity page, nonsense, false, take your pick - SimonLyall 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article does provide a more insightful representation of what bluffing entails, perhaps the 'coining by Yazza' part could be removed but the examples allowed to remain.

Although there isn't perhaps a major difference between bluffing in this context and in the more familiar context of playing cards, there is a subtle difference between the two and the article makes it clear that this type of bluffing, to use the author's wording, is not quite the same as the more familiar term. The article could be a fake; however there is no real evidence for that. According to the article, the term has only recently come into use and it would take time for it to be widely accepted and even widely heard about. As a local article it might not fit the criteria necessary but if it does extend more widely than that, even if it isn't well-known, it should perhaps remain. It is at any rate an extension on the term bluffing and that is what wikipedia is about: extending people's understanding of a word or topic.

• It's not a vanity page, nonsense, false and i'm not sure what you mean by original research. The name was included merely for background knowledge as names are often included on wikipedia articles, where relevant, and here I would have thought that applied; however it is open for debate. I myself know of several people across the country who understand bluffing in this context so don't consider the article of local interest only as has been postulated. Equally, because the term is known across the country it can hardly be a nonsense page or false, surely! - Miniyazz 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V. Claims can't be verified and are not sourced. Furthermore, by the author's own admission, this is a neologism "...the term has only recently come into use and it would take time for it to be widely accepted and even widely heard about."-Isotope23 18:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(Cite sources and Transwiki) or Delete. This is better suited to be a dictionary entry, if it is valid. Claims are not sourced. There are no external links. There is no assertion of the importance of Robert Yarham. The explanation of the distinction between normal bluffing and Yazza variant is not concise. High risk of vanity. Cdcon 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed any possibility of it being a vanity article (in my opinion), at risk of losing some of the meaning of the article; I've also tried to clarify the distinction between the types of bluffing. - Miniyazz 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I might not be much of a vanity article anymore, but it's also now not meaningfully different from other articles on bluffing. It's borderline original research and unverifyable. --Wingsandsword 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge then perhaps, given that the other article on bluffing related to this meaning is merely two lines long and, to quote above, "it [the article] provides a more insightful representation of what bluffing entails". - Miniyazz 17:54, 2 March 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.