Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggro deck


 * 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. Close(ish), but of the 4 keeps, two were invalid, and two were irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Proto :: type  11:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aggro deck
A broad genre of Magic: The Gathering decks. See the recent Articles for deletion/List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats and Strategies discussion which resulted in deletion. Wikipedia is not a game stratgy guide. Andrew Levine 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also nominated Aggro-Control deck and Combo deck --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also nominated Mind's Desire. Andrew Levine 19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You might want to look at Magic: The Gathering deck types . Just saying. FrozenPurpleCube 05:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, those other ones should be nominated for deletion as wll. There doesn't need to be articles for each deck type. TJ Spyke 05:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Manticore. I will add those soon. Andrew Levine 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. MER-C 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't a "game strategy guide." It's a discussion of one of the three main deck archtypes of the original TCG.  If every single Pokemon (of which there are over 300) gets an article, why can't the deck types, of which there are only three and none of them are stubs, get articles?  Silver2195 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because as well-established as the game's deck-format trinity of aggro, combo, and control are, they are not defined by Magic's rules, but rather have evolved as a result of players over the years tuning their decks to find an optimal strategy. As for the Pokémon, their articles do not (or in any cases where they do, should not) cover game strategy, but they do cover the established story of the characters as they appear in the comics and cartoons. Plus, there's the Yu-Gi-Oh precedent to consider. Andrew Levine 15:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because 1) The Pokemon defense is not a valid one, as 2) Pokemon articles are all well sourced with multiple sources, which this does not and 3) even if it were sourced, it still violates WP:NOT, point 4, instruction manuals. (The Pokemon species articles are not guides on how to play with them.)  ColourBurst 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete —  but in that case you need to do the same to all the decks, per FrozenPurpleCube-- lucasbfr talk 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nonination and WP:NOT a manual, and WP:NN (not every aspect of the game is notable enough for an article). Have also nominated Aggro-Control deck and i see that Combo deck has already been nominated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Aggro-Control deck has apparently been folded into this nomination, delete that as well. Andrew Levine 19:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all except for Mind's Desire, which should be redirected to Scourge (Magic: The Gathering), because of similar articles like Juzam Djinn (which is a redirect to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering)). ColourBurst 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't understand the need to delete an article that's so neatly tucked away that it will be read only by those that want to read it. Chess openings are in Wikipedia and they are pure strategic choices in a game, on a specific level. I can source the material in these AfD but you're just going to delete them on some other grounds. I have spent hours on them and now they're going up in a puff of smoke. The game of Magic is actually in need of encyclopedic material like this, the official website has just gotten around to hiring writers to lay 'official' groundwork like these AfD's cover; it's fan sites that cover this material but in extreme detail on a daily basis. Are you the janitors that must keep Wikipedia clean? I just don't see how this is dirty. NorrYtt 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Chess openings have been written about in countless books over the years. Can you find books to source any of this? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, so articles that are only accessible to a niche crowd are not good for the encyclopedia (articles that are too "in-universe" are similarly treated). But in this case, the deck articles are always going to focus on how to play them (just like a Pokemon article that was deleted, Blisskarm, and people say we don't delete Pokemon articles!), and I don't think you'd accept the compromise on taking out all of the "how to play" material, so a better option would be to transwiki them to a specialist wiki, like Wikibooks.  That way you can keep your articles.  ColourBurst 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's no 'How to Play' in these articles. They are theory articles. It's not "The Queen's Gambit", it's "Controlling the center squares is an excellent strategy." Magic is too dynamic to write books about it that don't quickly become obsolete. Sources are Internet-based. NorrYtt 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep T h e St ev e  10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Care to give a reason why? ColourBurst 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KeepComradeAF 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete wiki is not a "How to" manual for a card game. Ohconfucius 03:01, 2 November 2006 (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.

ephemera can be captured by wikipedia in a way that other encyclopaedias don't. as long as the article remains factual and omits  strategy etc then keep. raining_girl 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)