Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of spades

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 Keep. Discussion regarding the possibility of a merger can take place on article talk pages. There's clearly no consensus for deletion here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of spades[edit]

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

Not really long enough to have its own article, for the same reason I am nominating the following other articles

Please help me put this template on the above pages as I am using Twinkle. Most of the stuff covrered in the above articles is also covered in at least one other article.The ChampionMan 1234 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to rank articles (e.g. Ace). They don't merit standalone articles. (I've tagged the other articles for Afd.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Not really long enough to have its own article" is not a valid deletion rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ace of hearts, just looking at one of these, looks to be a fine, if somewhat short, article. The only argument I've seen for deletion here is that all the material found here is covered elsewhere. Could you indicate where for each of those articles? ~~keep~~ is where I am for now. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all it's clear deletion isn't called for. I see no reason to merge these, and if we did, it's not clear where to merge them. That would be better addressed as a talk-page discussion in any case. Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion, and it isn't even a reason to merge. Hobit (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I created Ace of hearts, and it is by far the most developed of all of them so I think we should speak about this AFD int he context of that article. That card givs some context to what the end result of an article on a card might look like, as opposed to those simple stubs. Oh, and also Keep as creator of AoH, and as supporter of these types of articles in general.--Coin945 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all: Individual playing cards not really notable aside from the top of playing cards as a whole p b p 01:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and so, yes, they really are notable. Andrew (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't preclude merger... p b p 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The shortness of the current drafts is not a reason to delete. Some of the pages such as ace of spades are already too large for merger per WP:SIZERULE and there seems to be plenty of material and sources to do more. Andrew (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of spades is a poor example because it is likely to have a stronger case for notability than the others because card companies usually put their logo or some other special design on. Also, I don't believe WP:SIZERULE is applicable here: since Ace of Spades is well under 40 KB, it can be merged. p b p 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ace of Spades. The rest can be merged into articles about Tarots, or whatnot. The Ace of Spades article has valid referenced information about it which would not fit elsewhere, how the design was changed at times to prove a tax was paid on it, etc. Dream Focus 10:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, or merge all into playing card or more appropriate article. BOZ (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all articles to one. Harsh (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Each article has enough content in its own right. Structurally, the articles don't appear readily mergeable, since each article seems to cover slightly different things. The only caveat is to make sure that King (card) doesn't overlap too heavily with each individual king article - but that's an improvement suggestion rather than a AfD comment. Aspirex (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2014 (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.