A few concerns have come up recently about this article. First, it is more appropriate to wiktionary, as it just gives list of slang names. I believe there is some precedent for deleting list of slang articles. Second, whatever encyclopedic usefulness this article has is way overwhelmed by the ungodly amount of spam and vanity this article attracts. Developing an appropriate standard for inclusion has proved quite difficult. If you think we should keep the article, PLEASE suggest how we can objectively limit the scope of this article. Otherwise it becomes a maintenance nightmare. --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything appropriate should be moved to Wiktionary. None of these terms are standard usage for technical terms that would appear in articles. List of poker terms acts as a glossary for technical terms in articles. Wikipecia is WP:NOT a dictionary, or a slang or idiom guide. (There could be hundreds of more entries that are in common usage regionally all over the world that have a few reliable sources mentioning the use of the term.) 200521:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to disagree that this is dictionary type information, and I think it is the type of information an interested person might go to an encyclopedia to lookup. At present, the more obscure ones are explained, which prevents the article becoming too unwieldy. CitiCat23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you be more explicit? Why can't someone who's adding a vanity entry "explain" the name they just made up? Why can't a linkfarm website do the same? --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are infinatly many different poker slang terms regional, international etc., should be moved to dictionary or better still just deleted --Greatestrowerever23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I use the page all the time when I'm playing online poker. If this gets deleted it should be moved to wikitionary.82.21.67.3815:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I use it too. The problem with it is that it has become a shit magnet. Look at the history - 99% of the past 500 edits are vanity garbage edits and reversions. It shows up in my watchlist more than any other article. Those of us who edit it regulary have been unable to come up with a threshold for inclusion of terms. If you have any ideas, please suggest! SmartGuy04:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
