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.
Note: Nominator concedes (but remains highly skeptical about, due to lack of sources) the possibility that the merge could go the other direction, from sharptoshark; nominator is concerned much more about the PoV fork than about the specifics, despite having actually sourced the specifics in great detail. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Just to be clear, I am proposing a deletion and then a replacement with a redirect, so that the deletion is on-record and grounds for speedy deletion of any re-creation of the PoV-fork, per WP:CSD#G4. Card shark was already redirecting (by me) to Card sharp; after un-reverting reversions of this redirect and trying to engage in discussion to resolve the editing dispute, I gave up and self-reverted it back to a stub instead of a redirect, so it could be easily examined here and an AfD template on it would make sense to anyone running across it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the dispute is a supposed equivalance of shark with sharp then you are mistaken - these are not the same thing. The term shark is commonly used in poker coverage to indicate someone who feeds upon the fish. See Sharkscope, for example. Deletion is not an appropriate way to resolve this editing dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thing is, reliable sources are overwhelming for equivalence, with zero reliable sources (actually, zero sources cited, period) indicating otherwise. I am well aware of the jargon usage you describe (the term "fish" for "easy mark" is originally from pool hustling and dates to the late 1800s), and when someone documents this shark/fish usage in the poker field, then this more specific usage can be added to the article, but the etymology is so well-sourced at this point it is unquestionable. Even the evolution of "shark" as a term for "skilled player" in addition to its negative meaning of "card cheat or swindler" is well-documented. All that's needed is a section at the article, not a separate article. And whether or not that section happens is a matter of whether reliable sources are provided, per WP:V and WP:RS – not of any relevance to this AfD. Until such time as there is so much well-sourced material about "card shark" as a term distinct from "card sharp" that an article split is needed due to article length, there is no justification for the split. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion / mergeunless cited sources showing equivalence of the two terms are more fully discussed and explained. This proposal arises out of a proposed merge that jumped the gun long before responses came in, and an inability for parties to work it out civilly on the talk pages. The two terms are related but seem to come from different sources. The citations given are without fail bogus or dead links, unlinked, or impertinent, and therefore do not weigh at all in supporting the merge. They may be real and valid but for the discussion page I think that has to be specifically described, not waved at with a citation to an unlinked page. "Shark" is by far the more common term per every google search I could muster, so if there is a merge it seems it should be into the card shark article. But it still has to be justified. Wikidemo (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed refutation: I have to refute all of these points (no bad faith or insult implied; the arguments are simply mistaken in my view.) The merge was proposed for quite a long time – since 9 July2007[1], and met no opposition other than personal opinion in favor of the idea that a narrow, unsourced slang usage deserves its own article (cf. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:NEO, etc.) There was no "inability for parties to work it out civilly", there was incivility on the part of one party up to the point of repeat admin warning action, and his/her refusal to even attempt such resolution, to such an extent that he/she deleted the opposing viewpoint from the article's talk page [2]. (though this could possibly have just been an editing error)arguments in response to struck passage now struck in turn. Cited (in detail) reliable sources show not only a common origin but a well-determined one, as to both order and timing of the evolution of these terms, including both US and UK sources; meanwhile no sources have been cited to contradict this, and in fact no sources against any of these facts have been presented at all – the "specialness" of the phrase "card shark" is original research. None of the sources cited are "bogus" in any way. I'll be happy to supply photographic or any other required evidence that they not only exist but are right here on my bookshelf in the case of the paper ones; they are cited well enough that anyone can verify that they exist, say what I said they did (I've even provided page numbers; everything is cited in {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}} format, fully filled-out). The argument that a source is invalid because it doesn't exist as a URL strikes me as contraWP:V and WP:RS and outweighed by AfD precedent in favor of printed sources above webby ones. The three references in the article that are at URLs are not broken links; I just verified all of them again, and anyone else is free to do so. Perhaps it was a transient network problem of some kind. Google searches are of limited or any relevance at all, per WP:GOOGLE and WP:AADD#Google test – carefully constructed, I can produce search results just the opposite, and someone else can produce search results that "prove" Elvis is still alive >;-). I get the point - there probably is evidence that "shark" is supplanding "sharp" and that the meaning is shifting, but we don't have reliable sources for this (yet?). The issue is not which term is more common; that has never even been a question here (avalid result of this AfD would be for Card sharp to be redirected to Card shark with the content ported to that location and rewritten, if there were reliable enough sourcing for the idea that the latter has eclipsed the former, generally and not just as an American colloquialism (NB: I am an American; this is not a US vs. UK English fight). Finally, the merge has been justified, at Talk:Card sharp#Merger of Card shark into Card sharp, so well that Card shark's principal defender User:2005 felt it somehow necessary to attack me for it as "obsessive" (seemingly not willing to distinguish between "thorough" and "manic"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are certainly obsessive - we are really straining at a gnat here. But I fear that I am being sucked into these deep waters. I've just spent some time in the OED and it appears that there are three root words in German:
schurke - a parasite or rogue. This then becomes shark as in loan-shark.
scharf - sharp or keen-edged. This figuratively then comes to mean quick-witted and the folk who live by their wits are called sharpers.
shirke - the sturgeon (fish) which then becomes the word shark, meaning the predatory fish.
The words have similar sounds and similar figurative usage and so here we are with much overlapping and interlocking usage. Anyway, I don't like the title Card shark, per se, as the term shark has a wider usage. For example, in the modern game HeroClix, the term shark is routinely used for a predatory tournament player - one who moves into a local backwater to snatch a big prize. I think there should be a page called Shark (gaming) which could cover such predatory play, including the modern poker usage, while Card sharp focusses upon cheating and sharp practise in card games. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is my bothering to actually do some research "obsessive", when yours is not? I agree that this is a molehill - it is a well-sourced and perfectly routine merge - but I'm not the one that made a mountain out of it, reverting without sources and pursuing repetitive personal attacks. <shrug> If it can't be resolved civilly between two editors, then it needs to be resolved by the community here.
Anyway, your "Shark (gaming)" idea would be problematic, because it does not have that positive connotation across the board. In pool, the connotation is quite negative (though among non-players, many believe that it is a compliment to call someone a "pool shark" to mean "skilled pool player"; actual players would never say that). The OED material is interesting; though it conflicts with some other sources, it could probably be worked in pretty easily.
Keep Per Colonel Warden and per Wikidemo. Rray (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colonel Warden, also, while the dictionary.com definition does have cardsharp as a secondary definition[1], under it's definition of cardsharp [2] it suggests a connection with cheating which cardsharking doesn't have.Red Fiona (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: You're contradicting yourself. At the second URL it defines cardsharp as a cheater at cards, and the first one card shark it defines that term as both a skilled player or as equivalent to cardsharp, which automatically means that card shark and sharp both have the definition of cheater, even if this particular dictionary only gives the skilled player definition for one of them (other dictionaries disagree with this one, as already cited at Card sharp and in more depth at Talk:Card sharp). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, if they were truly synonymous then surely card sharp would have card shark as an alternative meaning too.Red Fiona (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: See more detailed sourcing at Talk:Card sharp. The majority of dictionaries give both meanings for both terms. The main holdouts are shorter Webster's volumes, meanwhile the Webster's Unabridged from which they are edited down gives... both meanings for both terms. There are one or two that give both meanings for "sharp" and only the negative one for "shark", or say that the negative one is primary for shark! Volumes that are specifically about etymology and slang research - arguably the most pertinent sources - explicitly label them synonymous, and further say that the positive meanings for both not only arose later than the negative ones, but that the positive meaning of "sharp" pre-dates that of "shark". Several people in this debate have said something to the effect that they are "clearly" different terms and that "obviously" card shark is a positive term and card sharp a negative one, but this is not clear or obvious at all; so far it is baseless, and simply WP:ILIKEIT / WP:IKNOWIT style reasoning, based on personal idiom, not on sources. Even the idea that this alleged distinction is an Americanism is directly contradicted by the American Heritage Dict., among others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoCard sharp, or flip it around (obviously, that's a separate discussion). As mentioned, this appears to be a POV fork, and there is not sufficient content to warrant two separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are clearly two separate, if overlapping, meanings. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: On what basis would you separate these articles into a well-sourced one at Card sharp that is contradicted by an unsourced stub at Card shark, when a pile of cited sources say that both terms share both meanings? The issue is not whether there is both a positive and negative meaning; that's a given. The issue is whether there is any reliable evidence that the two terms (i.e. article topics) can be shown to have meanings different from each other. What evidence has been cited so far for this? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Colonel Warden. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeorDelete and redirect as per nom's suggestion. I've read Colonel Warden's views, but we are talking semantics here - different shades of meaning may be discussed within the main article if the editors feel it's worthwhile, but having a standalone article to deal with such details is excessive, and runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines and principles - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wp:merge#Merging - in particular "Overlap". The distinction may belong on Wiktionary, but even there they have cardshark as a synonym of cardsharp. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's plain the terms are USUALLY totally distinct, cheat/magician versus skilled/rounder, especially in expert circles. So in no way is this a semantic distinction. A merge makes no sense to anyone who is a card player, since the terms are totally different. It's like merging poker with Pokémon. 2005 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing articles for an encyclopedia, not for a dictionary. Hot and cold are two very different things, but they are both treated under temperature. Flammable and Inflammable are treated in the same article, etc. real ale is treated within Cask ale, even though not quite the same thing. We try to usefully group words with related meanings together in one article to discuss the topic in an encyclopedic fashion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are changing your vote? We do not group together words with different meaning! LOL, c'mon this is an easy one. We could have a Card players and manipulators article and include both, plus redirect the card manipulation article, plus the Rounder one too. But absent that, randomly combining two types of "people who use cards" and not others just doesn't make any sense. Obviously if combining is to be done cardsharp/card manipulating and cardshark/rounder should be the way combining should be done. 2005 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection on my part to such further merges, but I have to note that "we can't merge these without merging every possible other mergeable article at the same time" is not sound XfD reasoning; things are very routinely merged in stages at XfD, be they articles, categories, WikiProjects, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is amply clear they are two distinct words, Word Reference, Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary. The encyclopedia blindly acting contrary to (at the very least SOME) dictionaries and common usage is a terrible practice. Both cardshark and cardsharp have in the past noted that some people do use the terms interchangeable, and that is all that is needed. Cardsharps are magicians or cheats. Cardsharks are skilled players that feed on "fish". On the other hand, the cardshark article could be redirected to Glossary of poker terms with the two sentences of: "A skilled player who feeds on fish. See also cardsharp." with appropriate wikilinks to both the fish entry and cardsharp. Also is could simply be transwikied to the Wikidictionary. At this point there is no Glossary of card game terms, which is where this obviously would be most appropriate, but the poker glossary would seem adequate until are card game glossary was populated. 2005 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of citation falsification or misinterpretation: Your first reference (at the corrected URL of [3] gives "card shark" as a synonym of "card sharp", and at its [4] page, it gives the same defintion, and neither pages gives a positive one! Your second reference, when you dig deeper by also looking at its [5] page, first gives "card sharp" as a synonym of "card shark" and immediately below this gives the same definition, word for word for the shark version as it does for the sharp version, and without providing a positive meaning! Your third source gives "card shark" as nothing but a simple spelling variation of "card sharp" and provides both the positive and negative definitions for "card sharp"; further, at [6], it gives word-for-word precisely the same definitions and synonym relationship at the "card shark" entry as it does at the "card sharp" one you cited! Thanks for making my argument for me! Next. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Your edit notes include phrases like "blatant falsification" and "desperation". You should be able to make your point without personal attacks. (And accusing someone of "blatant falsification" is a personal attack.) Rray (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to interpret it that way, but from my point of view I'm simply being accurate. The other party falsely claimed that three sources backed his/her position, and throughout the debate, beginning on the article's talk page, has used various fallacious argument techniques and become increasingly shrill, grasping at straws to prevent this merge without a shred of evidence in support of separate articles. What terms besides falsification and desperation would you rather that I applied to these behaviors? Criticizing another editor's behavior (actions) is not the same as calling the other party names or attacking their character, nor an assumption of bad faith (if the party in question were turning the article into a promotion piece for his/her website, then I might start assuming bad faith). Smart, and well-meaning, people can make bad arguments. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that the references don't support the assertion would make the same point without being a personal attack. When you assume a motivation by calling edits falsifications and desperation, you're crossing a line. Calling someone shrill and saying that they're grasping at straws is just more inflammatory language that doesn't contribute to an environment of collaboration. I disagree with your viewpoint about the merge and the AfD, but I haven't made any judgments about your intentions. Do you see the difference now? Rray (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this to yourmy talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the above-mentioned user-talk discussion, I concede that I have been unnecessarily grumpy and argumentative here, but I stand firmly by the AfD nomination. Those arguing for separation of the two terms into separate articles have not cited a single legitimate source in support of this idea and AfD is not a vote; 100 WP:ILIKEITs do not trump WP:V and WP:NPOV as bolstered by WP:RS and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. I may have been annoying as to my wording, but I'm not full of it on the matter actually before us at AfD. No reliably sourceable rationale has yet been given for the article bifurcation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 11 December 2007 (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.
