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 Roll-your-own cigarette. SoWhy 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roll your own[edit]

Roll your own (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Untouched since 2009. Deprodded with addition of a single source which does not appear reliable. Fails WP:HOWTO and WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source is plainly reliable as the most authoritative card game website in existence. I first went to redirect the article to Glossary of poker terms, like many such other specialized terms, but the article is too long to keep the rather long amount of words needed to full explain the definition, so keeping the article is a better solution. Simply deleting the article is aggressively user-unfriendly, and would unnecessarily lead to content forks whenever the term needed to be used in articles, so best to keep the article and next best to redirect it. 2005 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2005: The content on pagat.com appears to be entirely user submitted, meaning that it is not a reliable source. If there are no reliable sources, then the article should be redirected or deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but whatever, there are hundreds of references to the site in the Wikipedia because it the most authoritative source on card games in the world, and referenced in many books, journals and library websites. Again, there is no question it is a reliable source, and plainly the most reliable source about card games in existence. And of course a simple Google search will reveal both the pagat page and the article are accurate presentations of the meaning of the term. The only question about the article is that it is a "term", perhaps better for wikitionary and the glossary than an article, but it does no harm as an article in the form it is in, and is needed in some form because multiple other articles refer to it because it is the equivalent of an article like shuffle without which a reader would not be able to understand an article.2005 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2005: WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:NOHARM are not valid arguments. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'll pass on the wikinonsense. You obviously knew nothing about pagat, and won't even try to educate yourself so I'm moving on. 2005 (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- for the reasons outlined by TenPoundHammer. The single source presented is not enough to establish notability because of its exhaustive nature and the fact that much of its content is user-submitted. Reyk _YO! 06:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added another reference, and more sources can be found here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability as shown by the lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The book-reference and the list of books at Google books focus on the game of poker and the multitude of poker games. This is not significant coverage of this topic per GNG and fails WP:NRV by failing to obtain verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Also, fails NOTHOWTO - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Sources are needed that discuss the subject in detail, not the details of how to play. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course any book references for a variant of poker will be in books about poker. There is no need for a whole book to be about the article subject for it to have significant coverage of the subject. And WP:NOTHOWTO is about the way an article should be written, not about whether it should exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to say, the last part of your statement is incorrect. Any of the WP:ISNOT criteria are valid grounds to argue for deletion. In this case, the relevant section title is: "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" and please see: instruction manual and (video) game guide and so on. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:NOTHOWTO:

  Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.

  This article does the former. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glossary of poker terms. I've added an entry there based on the existing references. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Glossary of poker terms per Power~enwiki's suggestion and initiative. Roll-your-own cigarette as this is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and there is already a hatnote for the poker term at that target. ~Kvng (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not agree that a redirect to Glossary of poker terms would be the right outcome. I still contend, per the book sources that I mentioned above, that this is a notable topic, but the primary meaning of "roll your own" is obviously Roll-your-own cigarette and this phrase is used metaphorically in many other fields, so this article should be moved to Roll your own (poker). WP:NOTHOWTO is clearly not applicable to this article, but anyway the contention that it is reason for deletion rather than for changing the way an article is written has no support in deletion policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And WP:NOTHOWTO says nothing about it excluding an article rather than writing it in an acceptable way, but, anyway, as I have pointed out twice above, this article is already written in an acceptable way per that policy. You are the one who is arguing against consensus by claiming that it is a reason for deletion(Redacted). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTHOWTO does indicate whether or not a topic deserves to have its own article. When a topic matches NOTHOWTO or any other "WP:ISNOT" then it is not meant to have its own article. There is nothing in this article that is based on coverage that says it is notable. The article consists of mundane details consisting of the rules of how to play in a general way.

This is the definition of a How to Manual; a Rulebook; a Game Guide; or Instruction Manual; all of which, frankly, Wikipedia is not. (Redacted). The content of the article consists of instructing the reader about how to manipulate the cards during a game - and that is all. So, the NOTHOWTO is one pointer that demonstrates notability or the lack thereof.

For example, there is nothing about the game's impact on society or groups within societies. There is no rationale presented as to why this is significant and has garnered notice in the media which enables it to be an encyclopedic entry. Hence, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). There is nothing in the article that discusses the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of this topic, as well as having concise summaries of those attributes in the Wikipedia article.

Regarding the deletion policy - see numbers seven and eight in the reasons for deletion:

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

AfDs such as this are discussion forums to determine whether or not a topic meets the notability guidelines. The discussions and the guidelines help to determine whether or not a topic should have its own stand-alone article. The WP:ISNOT criteria is specifically noted in WP:N; and "WP:ISNOT" is a policy page; and is one of the five pillars - please see - WP:5P1. Additionally, please note that I struck some of my comments. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I demonstrated above that loads of reliable sources exist to verify this and that it flies through notability guidelines. I can really do without lectures from the instigator of the most ridiculous and most ignorant deletion nomination that I have seen in over a decade of editing Wikipedia, who also thinks that a piece of utter trivia belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the persuasive arguments by nom. I would also agree that this should not be a redirect, at least not to poker jargon as the vast majority of people typing this topic in would be looking for the cigarette type subject. If the delete does pass, I would suggest a redirect to Roll-your-own cigarette. Ifnord (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a job for WP:DISAMBIG actually. Your redirect proposal is good. I've changed my !vote (slightly) above. I don't think you'll see much support for deleting a redirect that (as you've acknowledged) is a likely search term. ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.