Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprentice (software)


 * 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 no consensus to delete W.marsh 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Apprentice (software)
No reliable source for notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I've practically never even played it. I had been intending on going to bed and was hinting when I deprodded it that I would be willing to go back and add references later, but so it goes.  Anyway, the program is somewhat handicapped by the fact that it has a very generic name and, for obvious reasons, Wizards of the Coast's official websites would not want to bring too much attention to it.  Additionally, many commercial sites make money selling real cards, and so would downplay a free alternative.  Even in spite of all that, it seems that it was fairly important "back in the day," and is even still used today to some extent.  It easily satisfies being written about by other sources.  To wit:
 * Starcitygames.com, the major news/articles site for Magic. 4,930 internal Google hits; even if 3/4 of them are phantom hits (which I doubt), that's 1,250 articles, with all the handicaps mentioned above.
 * New set releases are still being done today. This is an independent site that has maintained it.
 * Another site found by Google that has in its news log that someone else is restarting their Apprentice league.


 * ...I could post more Google hits, but I think the point is made. As a further argument, this article was spun off the main Magic: The Gathering article (where occasionally people would try and put in information hawking this, which at least says something about player base), and I for one would prefer to have a place to move it to rather than have it pile up in the already over-long main article. SnowFire 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete None of those links appears to address WP:SOFTWARE--no independent review, nothing to show that it is in very common use.  How is it notable?  If it is unnotable enough not to be included in the main Magic:The Gathering article, it certainly isn't notable enough for its own article! --Karnesky 06:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is mentioned in the Magic: the Gathering article, under the subheading Expense. --kenobi.zero 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was in a hurry last night and grabbed some Google links quickly. Again, let me stress that I am not the right one to serve as its defender, as to my knowledge it is relevant even when I have not really played it.  If you want to slap an  on it, that can help cleanup, but it's notable.  If you look at some of the links reviewing Apprentice:
 * VHS, Betamax and DVD: MWS, Apprentice and Magic Online This was a "Premium Article," meaning you originally had to pay money to see it. Author Zvi Mowshowitz actually has a WP article.
 * Three Alternatives to Using Magic Online, another article discussing it.
 * Why Pay Money When You Can Get The Play For Free?: A Simple Apprentice Primer, an article from the guy who (used to?) run the league for players.
 * MTGOnline Responds: Why Apprentice Works, And Why You Can Play Safely For Free Apparently a safety discussion from some site that has since fallen off the Interweb.
 * What's The Difference Between Apprentice And Magic Online? Here are some less interesting articles that are relevant just to show that at one time, Apprentice had a fairly large fanbase.
 * Have You Forgotten Everything You Need To Learn To Play Apprentice?
 * Apprentice Is King, And I Won't Hear Otherwise
 * WP has articles on plenty of games that no one plays anymore and were utter commericial flops; their only reviews were perfunctory "this game exists and sucks," and even that may be hard to find if the game is old enough. I think that even such commercially published games are still worth an article, and I think that Apprentice is a step above that. SnowFire 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All of those links appear to be from Star City Games. How about non-Magic related sources? Andre (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I offered some non-SCG links above in my original post; it's just that SCG happens to be easily searchable. As for non-Magic sources... er...  how to say this.  If you read the article, you'll note that Apprentice is simply an implementation of Magic: The Gathering's rules.  Unlike, say, Magic: The Gathering - Battlegrounds, which was more a spinoff and may well have had people buy it without familiarity with the license, the set of people interested in Apprentice coincides pretty exactly with those interested in Magic.


 * As an additional comment, while I stand by my keep vote, if you really believe the topic is non-notable, I would suggest that Merge would be a more proper vote, as this is mentioned in the article Magic: The Gathering video games (which should perhaps be renamed to List of Magic: The Gathering video games?) SnowFire 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research and failing to show evidence of being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've played it, and the list of articles above seems convincing enough to me. Mrjeff 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --InShaneee 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. While AfD should not be cleanup, I have edited in various citations that should qualify as independent notice, and removed a section that was mostly not written by me which is probably difficult to verify. SnowFire 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The real problem with this software is the whole premise around the software -- its a card game now made into a computer software that emulates game activity. You can't have a review of this type of software. Its like asking someone to review Microsoft Word based on an essay they wrote using it. You can't 'grade' or judge a software like this -- its purely a utility for players of the card game to use. I myself has used this application before switching to Magic Workstation but nevertheless. MrMacMan 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So that's strong keep on the grounds that it can't ever be sourced per policy? Er, right :-) Guy (Help!) 07:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I remember seeing a lengthy mention in local computer game mag, can't remember which issue. Would imagine it being covered elsewhere too. Anyway, Apprentice is sufficiently widely known program of its type; probably the most famous M:tG computer program ever devised. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Starcitygames is a reliable source. There are other sites that also mention it.  For all I know, Scrye and Inquest had articles about it, but even if they didn't, I'd still say it meets Notability from association with M:TG.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So all one has to do for inclusion is to demonstrate association with a notable concept? Sorry, no. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, yes, that is all you need. Take any number of articles on professional sports players, or politicians.  Individually, I can't imagine how most of them are really notable, but they still have articles.  Or take individual chess openings, or any of a dozen other things.   FrozenPurpleCube 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This equates significance of a major league sort and MTG. They are not equivalent.  Feel free to bring a better argument.  Guy (Help!) 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting his argument. He never claimed MTG and politics are equivalent; he merely used an example in which sometimes association is sufficient.  Obviously, the degree of notability of the mother topic and the "distance" of the daughter topic from it are relevant, and I don't think MM was trying to say otherwise.


 * That said, even though MTG may only be "minor-league" notable, Apprentice is not a fork of unencyclopedic minutiae, and I think MTG is still notable enough to support it. Wikipedia is not paper; it can afford to go into some detail. SnowFire 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, as to whether Magic is the equivalent of any major league sports, I'd say yes, it is somewhat. 6 million players worldwide.  Over a million a year in pro-tour prize money (plus who knows how many hundreds of thousands of prizes awarded in other tournaments), who knows how many millions in sales?  It may not be a football or a baseball, but it's not something to be ignored.  Same reason why people didn't go for deletion of pro-magic players earlier this year.  However, as Snowfire said, the primary purpose of my argument was NOT equivalence, but illustration.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. More sources about Apprentice:
 * The Future of Free Online Magic Leagues Interviews published on November 3, 2002 about the future of free online magic leagues based on Apprentice play. It's of MTGnews.com, which was the one of the most read magic the gathering sites back then.
 * Dragonstar Studios Still Alive News item about the developer of Apprentice.
 * Help E-League to break the record News item, which displays the size of online tournaments.
 * Visitor Stats of Magic-League.com home page In a way this proves the popularity of Apprentice, because Magic-League play consists of 40% Apprentice play.
 * I just checked the website logs of Magic-League.com and found that in 1 week there were 2045 visitors clicking a link to the Apprentice download page, mostly from Google, but also from other sites that link to it. Note that this is a lot more when a new MTG set is released and people want a new patch.
 * Koen 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Magic the Gathering Online Play "Apprentice is the most widely used free program to play online Magic the Gathering with." Laplie 19:44, 10 December 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.