Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of clubs

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 Standard 52-card deck. Tone 10:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Queen of clubs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Queen of clubs (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)

Unlike the ace of spades and other card articles, there is nothing particularly significant about the queen of clubs. The card is described as having some meaning in cartomancy, but so does every other card. It has a given name in the Paris pattern, but so does every other face card. The "gambler's card" nickname appears to be limited to an Australian winery's backstory, and all the other facts about this card are that it sometimes appears by chance or inevitability in situations involving playing cards, and that you can use the phrase as a golf pun. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Standard 52-card deck; we may need a better approach to deal with all the hatnotes on that page though. I've started a discussion about that at Talk:Standard 52-card deck. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect. The Queen of Clubs is actually significant in a number of well known card games, but the article does not cover this; if it did, I'd be in favour of keeping it. My suggestion is the words relevant to card playing are moved to Standard 52-card deck as part of a more structured section on individual cards. Bermicourt (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2018 (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.