Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Content available for transwikification on request. Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Deletion overturned per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26. The result is now no consensus per the DRV. Arkyan 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords

This is simply a guide to the keywords used in Magic: the Gathering. The last AFD was based upon WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, but as was mentioned there, this article goes beyond just describing game effects, but a little into the development history of them. However, I don't think that the Magic keywords have any outside notability. All of the sources are "first-person" ones that were pulled from the Magic website and from the Magic developers.

Delete (or merge if anything is ov value); essentially a glossary that serves as a game guide. JJL (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Might be useful to transwiki to the Magic Wikia. It seems that they don't have this page there.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Keep. The references provided may be from a source that aren't exactly "third-party", but I doubt that any truly third-party sources would be anywhere near as useful as those from WotC itself for this information. As far as outside notability goes, I'd pretty much have to agree; they don't have notability outside of MTG. However, the content itself is good as far as sourcing goes (assuming we agree that WotC works as a source for the development of their own games). Also, no realistic merge targets exist. Anything you try to merge this into would be too big imediately afterwards; especially the MTG article itself, as it's already pretty huge. I'm not really oposed to a merge, supposing that any real target can be found, but I highly doubt that that's a workable solution here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure how you're justifying a keep...your argument pretty much supports a delete. WotC is not a third-party source, so it can't be used to establish notability. I admit the article is well done for what it is, but the subject simply isn't worthy of an article in Wikipedia. As for where to put it, the MtG Wiki seems like a great place, and some of this stuff (along with several other things in several other MtG articles) could be put into a History of Magic: the Gathering article...both of which seem like good ways to spend a 3rd shift coming up. But I agree, no merge is really possible (unless Magic: the Gathering Rules is kept). --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say this well enough, but I'm pretty sure this is a section that grew large enough to need its own article, or at least can be considered as such. And I don't see why out-of-game notability is required in this case at all, or why references outside of WotC would be; both would be nice, yes, but not required. Besides, in the absence of all else, it's useful (note that this arguement is only to be avoided without context). The article contains good content not just on the keywords themselves but also information on their development, you admitted that in the nomination. This is useful and encyclopedic stuff as far as I can tell. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Useful, perhaps. Encyclopedic? I really don't think so. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete useful on a Magic Wikia. Not wanted here. JuJube (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete this spinout of an article that shouldn't exist. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (disrciminate and verifiable) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Magic The Gathering of which there are multiple published versions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this verifiable under WP:V? And what does the MtG Encyclopedia have to do with anything? --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Multiple published sources = verifiable. Multiple MTG Encyclopedias has to do with the fact that such topics are consistent with our first pillar on being a collection of specialized encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to reprint the large sections of the comp rules when that stuff is available for free to anyone. Anything that links to this should link directly there. Keep it simple. IanCheesman (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went to this article to find out want I needed to know about the history behind a few keywords, namely Sweep and Banding. If it wasn't for this article, it would have been a nightmare looking through archives. The note that says what set a keyword appears in is good for a game that's over 10 years old and still producing new content. I'm not fully versed in Wikipedia's policies, so I don't know if my arguments can be used to support keeping the article or to support deleting it. 24.125.236.215 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a game guide, and Wikipedia is not a gameguide. As was stated in the previous AfD discussion: "The bulk of the article requires an understanding of how to play the game, and offers no benefit to readers other than explaining how to interpret rules text on cards in that game. This fundamentally violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, and has little potential to ever be anything but a guide." --Stormie (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then Delete. I can see how this would be immensely useful to someone, but alas, it stretches into gameguide territory. Transwikification to the aforementioned MTG wikia would be the best choice here. So Awesome (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Magic Wikia and delete - very useful list to people who actually play the game (like me), not even understandable to others who don't. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for this level of detail in a general encyclopedia. --Pustefix (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete, but make sure that a link to its new home is included on the main page for Magic: The Gathering. This genuinely useful, but Wikipedia is not necessarily the right home for it. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is a guide to playing Magic: the Gathering. The bulk of the article requires an understanding of how to play the game, and offers no benefit to readers other than explaining how to interpret rules text on cards in that game. This fundamentally violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, and has little potential to ever be anything but a guide. Transwiki if anyone wants it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason why in even an extreme worst case scenario we couldn't redirect this to Magic: The Gathering without deleting in order to keep editor's contribs public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, AMIB, several of the entries discuss when the concepts were first introduced, what common language they evolved from, or how they have changed over time (e.g. Protection)... additionally, i see no actual instruction, as in "how-to" use these keyworded abilites - it's like saying a glossary of anatomical terms is teaching someone how to operate. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a glossary. It is perfectly encyclopedic (check a real one) to have glossaries of terms for technical subjects in order to aid in comprehension. In fact, we have tons of glossaries already on various subjects over at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. This is a useful and non-guide addition that can help readers understand some of the jargon. While, yes, jargon should be explained in the text when it is used, there are three cases when it's usually avoided: when stopping midsentence to explain every word would make the article harder to read; when the word was explained in a previous paragraph (this causes problems though when the previous paragraph is in a different section and the reader was brought to the non-explanatory paragraph by a redirect); and (in this specific case) when jargon is being used in images. "Game-guide" should be interpreted as guidance for the game, there is nothing instructional about this article, merely informational. Are we seriously considering that if a reader is interested in learning what Trample means after seeing it in the text of a picture on the main MtG article, that they must then leave wikipedia and navigate through a fanpage, or worse, the official site (it can be daunting). Finally, this goes beyond what it needs to do, by providing context as much as possible for the specific keywords, providing insight to how the game has evolved over time, while a little too-technical sometimes, this can be fixed and is never grounds for out-right deletion. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- also, in direct response to the nomination, while WP:FICT is still under debate, the idea that lists of fictional elements from a notable work are perfectly acceptable as being notable themselves, is a fairly stable consensus - otherwise we would need to delete every List of minor characters in X article out there. I offer up the page in question as both a glossary as per my above post, and also a list of fictional elements from a notable work. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: New to this, don't know all the rules on wikipedia & other wikis, but the article should be kept. The article might not be up to the standards of wikipedia & people are having difference defining the actual role of the article, but isn't this why the article should stay on wikipedia so it can be edited? If it looks like a game guide, make it not so. If it's not up to the standard, make it so. Also, just made a link between the article and an orphaned article. If the article in questioned should be removed, then the orphaned article and all other related articles should be removed as well. Futhermore, if all the articles are thusly removed for some pesky differences, then Wikipedia simply loses its most foundamental principle: an all encompassing encyclopedia which everybody can edit. Ndhuang (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above, is useful information to related articles. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (2nd nomination)

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords

zproxy.org