Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion (Magic: The Gathering)


 * 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   keep. Without prejudice to any merger discussions. Consensus is that there has been enough third-party coverage of all or most of these items to make them notable.  Sandstein  11:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Invasion (Magic: The Gathering)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Each of these articles is about a expansion set for the game Magic: The Gathering. I have examined all the nominated articles, and no case do I find any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. This collection of material might be a valuable part of a fan-site, but I see no evidence that it belongs in an encyclopedia.

Some of these articles, such as Invasion are referenced only to the manufacturer's website; other such as Kamigawa have no footnotes at all. The only other references I have found in any of these articles are to fan sites, or to commercial websites which sell gaming products.

Most of the articles are written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Even the few articles which show some awareness of a need for real-world relevance fail to provide real-world evidence of their significance. For example, Time Spiral is referenced only to an article by the game's own designer, who is hardly an independent source.

After deletion, it will probably be best to redirect the titles to the head article Magic: The Gathering. Some of titles are implausible search terms, but the redirects will preserve any external links.

Disclosure: I encountered this material at the CFD discussion on Category:Magic: The Gathering expansion sets. I examined two of the articles, and nominated them for AFD (see AFD:Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering) and AFD:Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)). At the latter AFD, another editor suggested that the other expansion set articles were equally poor, so I investigated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note tagging. I have just finished tagging these articles for AFD. In each case I have also added notability and in-universe tags to the article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Magic: The Gathering has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, broadly, including the two sets nominated separately, and cleanup. That these articles are poorly written and fail to cite available sources is not a valid deletion rationale. And there are certainly sources available. Undoubtedly every Magic expansion set / expansion block receives coverage in gaming industry magazines -- anything pre-2007 is abundantly covered in InQuest, and anything pre-2009 in Scrye, for example. There are droves of books about the game, many of which provide nontrivial coverage of whatever expansions are present at the time. Quite a few sets (Ravinca, to pull one out of a hat) have won prestigious industry awards (in that case, an Origins Award in 2005). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Add Lotus Noir to the list of established publications that are trivially capable of sourcing these articles; unlike the other two, it is still in publication and so can source post-2009 releases as well. Now, admittedly, I don't think any of these magazines are readily available online (if Lotus Noir indexes its very old back issues, my French was too rusty to find them quickly). WP:MUSTBESOURCES, sure (and if I absolutely must, I will find specific citations, but this massive omnibus nomination makes that burdensome), but when there have been multiple independently-published periodicals (note that I didn't even include The Duelist / Sideboard because that's the publisher's house magazine) whose primary focus was on this topic, that's as much a case of WP:BEFORE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, at times even specific expansions have been the sole subject of full books: Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) currently redirects to the block article at Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) (and I'm neutral whether that structure is the correct one), but see: . Now, not every set has a full-length independently-published book treatment (probably, anyway), but more than one does, and significant but less exclusive coverage is commonplace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wordware had quite a series of these going for a little while. There are, at a minimum, books entirely dedicated to Alliances, Mirage, Visions, Weatherlight, and Portal. Probably others. And, of course, books and books and books dedicated to the game itself with substantial, if not exclusive, discussion of given sets or blocks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

95% of the refs are to the publisher's own site, as is typical of fancruft. I set out to look at every single ref which was to another source, and found nothing which was both independent and reliable. All the other refs I saw were either fansites or sellers. What did I miss? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Indeed, in Time Spiral I did miss a reference from InQuest: an interview with the game's designer. That's not a great example of a secondary source. Anything which doesn't consist simply of quotes from the creator? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Firstly, I have repeatedly explained that did my homework. Please assume good faith, and stop accusing me of being dishonest about that. I am human, and make no claim to perfection, so in checking a few hundred references, a non-zero error rate is merely evidence that I am not a computer. Describing it as "sloppiness" is aggressively rude, and adds nothing to the debate. Secondly, I did check that ref to OgreCave.com's page on the Origins Awards. There are several reasons that I don't count it as evidence of notability:
 * Keep All of these articles have been consolidated recently and some more might occur, but each is highly notable. Lots of literature on each expansion, to speak nothing of the blocks which is how the pages appear now. There are two collectible card game price guides that also document each of the blocks mentioned above; these are in addition to the two industry mags that Squeamish mentioned. The Duelist is another magazine that has documented these. Also, it should not be assumed these pages are going to be deleted, this would suggest personal bias. Additionally, you described these articles inaccurately, especially with your comment that each of these is "about a expansion set for the game." No, each of these is about a block which typically includes three expansions of the game. Are you sure you read these thoroughly? Leitmotiv (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. No, of course I didn't waste hours reading every line of this fancruft. I assessed them for evidence of notability, and whether they are a "block" or an "expansion set" is irrelevant to notability. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Reply Well you may want to accurately assess your nominations for deletion the next time you decide to omnibus an entire string of articles. It might make you look more credible. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. No, I leave that sort of nuance to those who write the articles. It is irrelevant to an AFD discussion whether the topic covers one expansion set or three, and your pedantic insistence on the point accurately mirrors the in-universe focus of the articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply I only raise the issue to point out that you aren't accurately describing the reasons for your nomination. During my recent edits from minutes ago, I see you glaringly overlooked qualified secondary sources on some of your nominations. Try better next time. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Example please, rather than assertion. Which article, which source?
 * Reply Well honestly, I don't feel like resifting through all the work I did because of your sloppiness. BUT, here is one I recall Time Spiral with a reference from InQuest. Looks like there are others elsewhere from TCGPlayer, MTGSalvation (dead link) but you've already stated that retailers are below you; nevermind the notable hundreds of millions of dollars they make. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply No, Leitmotiv, the issue is not my feeling about retailers. The problem is that the relevant policy (WP:N) assesses notability by looking at coverage in sources independent of the article's subject. The fact that the sellers make lots of money doesn't make them independent sources; it gives them a conflict of interest.
 * I know that InQuest, Scrye, and Lotus Noir are not available online. But really, those all are/were major, independent, well-regarded periodicals serving this specific industry, and often focused on these specific topics. There have been an abundance of articles, on just about every facet of every one of these releases, from development, to distribution, to reviews, to retrospectives. And there are other print sources, too, like the Wordware series of guides that, for awhile, was a book per set. And then, of course, we have two sets (Urza's Saga, Ravnica) that are Origins Award winners (1998, 2005, respectively). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC) +More than that, actually; many individual expansions are winners of prestigious industry awards. Additional Origins Awards for Legends (1994) and Innistrad (2011); I may have missed some.  Games magazine Games 100 best CCG award in the December 1997 issue for Portal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Your description of "independent" inaccurately matches the secondary market per WP:N's description of independent sources. They are not "affiliated," so TCGPlayer would suffice. Conflict of interest? Are you saying a used car sales lot is a lapdog for all of the car manufacturers? Or could it be he could care less? If this was strictly like a Toyota dealership then I could get behind your reasoning, but it's not. Though I could if the retailer in question sold only one kind of product and had obvious loyalties. I'm sure there are plenty of retailer citations all over Wikipedia. I don't see how TCGPlayer or the others should be excluded. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. Do you understand what a conflict of interest is? A retailer's primary interest is selling games.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More sloppiness spotted on Ravnica which has an Origins award reference. Yah, OP didn't do her homework. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Leitmotiv, your repeated incivility is moving beyond rudeness into something close to harassment. Please stop it.
 * Ogrecave.com does not appear to have any of the characteristics of a WP:Reliable source, and may fit the definition of WP:USERGENERATED
 * The page in question is about the Awards, not about Ravnica (which is merely one of a few dozen games listed). Even if OgreCave was a reliable source, WP:N explicitly says "significant coverage is more than a passing mention", and that page gives Ravnica only a passing mention.
 * Winning an award is not evidence of notability. It may be an indication that the topic in question is likely to have received significant coverage elsewhere, but it is not evidence of that coverage. Many awards are issued in many fields, but their significance varies widely. Some of them (such as the Oscars or the Booker Prize) are so high-profile that their winners gain significant attention well beyond the usual sphere of interest in that field.  Wikipedia's article on the Origins Award is in very poor shape, and gives no indication (let alone evidence) that this a highly significant award. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading your entire reply after you accused me of being aggressively rude. No, that started with you and your "pedantic" comments. Hypocrite. Again, try better next time. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

These articles are in exactly the same state. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha (Magic: The Gathering) (group nom of 16 articles). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have found two previous AFDs of MTG materials: 1 and 2. In the latter discussion, User:JohnCD noted that "the content of these articles is all in-universe cruft repeating primary sources, material for Wikia's Magic: The Gathering Wiki but not for Wikipedia".


 * Comment: Those two previous AFDs are very different. Duel Decks are small reprint lines without any new cards and limited sales and coverage rather than the full-fledged sets (an analogy would be the difference between the greater notability of an original music albums of notable artists vs. the lesser notability of a "greatest hits" compilation). The other AFD you point out gives information on fictional characters within the backstory, but the articles currently nominated are not fictional, but are real-world products with extensive secondary coverage. —Lowellian (reply) 18:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the nominator of 1 and 2, and I don't think that this particular AfD is the best comparison. There are certain things that could be written about the Invasion block that can't be written about Jace vs. Chandra.  Storyline and reception, for example.  Plus there's Lowellian's comment about reprints versus new cards; as such, the core sets AfD is probably more applicable than this one.  Note also that the Duel Decks were merged into a single article (written by me), much as each block has been merged into a single article (by me), and the six "early expansions" may be as well (probably also by me)  p  b  p  20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep All SqueamishOrange hits it on the nose here - InQuest Gamer and Scrye extensively covered each and every set of Magic, including retrospectives for the early publications, and they were the two premier publications in the card-gaming industry in the 1990s; coverage has only increased since then as the game has become even more popular. Plenty of secondary source material here, even if that is not evident in the current revisions for some of these articles. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw, man, when did I turn into an orange? :P Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Caught that too. My mouth giggled. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The recent RfC at Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) is probably relevant to this discussion p  b  p  17:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep all the blocks, merge Homelands, Dark, Legends and Fallen Empires to Magic: The Gathering early expansions: This probably can be sourced, but we don't need stand-alone articles for each set.  Voting to preserve RfC consensus, but consolidate all the early expansions into a single article  p  b  p  17:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Small RFC notwithstanding, there really is a lot of material available for most, if not all, of these individual sets. I feel fairly COI-free here, as I haven't touched this hobby in over a decade, but I'm willing to do some of the heavy lifting to get properly sourced material. Especially with the early stuff, it's likely to be slow, just because the content isn't available online, and I don't have stacks of Scrye, InQuest, Lotus Noir, and Game Trade Magazine sitting around.  But that's not a barrier to article creation or retention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the recent consolidation efforts by PBP, I recommend consistency in the layout of blocks. Though the earliest expansions didn't utilize this format, they too can be easily switched over to one or two separate pseudo block pages consisting of 1. Arabian Nights, Antiquities, and Legends and 2. The Dark, Fallen Empires, and Homelands. No. 1 has relatively similar distribution numbers among the expansions, as well as no. 2. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly comfortable doing that with the early sets, because the sources don't; it's entirely a false arrangement for the sake of article-structure convenience, and we shouldn't be doing that. But, again, all this is an editorial discussion that doesn't need to happen in the context of an AFD. Really, I think we follow the sources here. Early sets, even into the first couple of mostly-retroactively-declared blocks are going to be treated individually in terms of sourced discussion of development, distribution, and reaction.  The modern game, as I understand it, has pretty firmly embraced the block concept and discussed things in that context.  Exactly what we do with stuff on the borderline, especially the Ice Ages / Alliances / Homelands / Coldsnap weirdness is a matter for ... another time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to consolidate the non-block expansions into a single article rather than imposing a pseudo-block structure on them. It's worth noting that the first three expansions didn't have large print runs, while the last non-block expansions are generally considered some of the weakest sets in MtG history.  p  b  p  18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've been persuaded. My pseudo block idea is probably a bad approach even though it would fit snug. I would then lean towards a consolidation to PBP's suggestion of Arabian Nights to Homelands being on one page. But I do see that each of these earliest of expansions could deserve their own page because that history is so rich with documentation. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I know this is the wrong place for such a suggestion, but while we are talking about consolidations... Lorwyn/Morningtide should be merged with Shadowmoor/Eventide. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Recommendation - Squeamish Ossifrage hit this on the head with WP:BEFORE. I know Wikipedia doesn't like comparisons in situations like this, but heck, if Jigglypuff can have his own devoted Wiki article, I do believe there is hope for articles on blocks of Magic expansions. The articles do exist out there, they just haven't been added as citations yet. The emphasis of all this discussion should be on improving articles that we know are notable, but just need some TLC instead of blanket deletions. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep All, at least the blocks. Normally I have a lot of respect for BrownHairedGirl's reasoning, but this is one of the rare cases where I think she's gotten it wrong.  All of these sets would have received coverage in InQuest Gamer, a third party source not affiliated with WOTC.  I could see if my parents have not thrown out my old magazines from my teenage years, but in the meantime I know the sources are out there.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Contrary to the nominator's claims, this is not "fancruft" because, rather than articles about fictional characters or fictional objects, these articles are about real-world products with massive sales (on the level of millions of units) and extensive secondary coverage in hundreds of articles in independent (from the manufacturer) magazines and websites, and are thus notable on the same basis as car models, for which Wikipedia has thousands of pages (go down the category tree starting from Category:Automobiles by country). —Lowellian (reply) 18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Both Forbes and MTV seem to have sections of their websites that regularly cover Magic: The Gathering sets . As noted above, InQuest Gamer and Scrye provided significant coverage of Magic sets while those magazines were in print. Calathan (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Factual information about the release date of the set, how many cards and at what rarities seems relevant. While this information can be available at other websites related to selling the product, Wikipedia is considered a source for generic and historical factual information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32D7:DA60:5AB0:35FF:FE7F:1C79 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not certain all of these have seen significant coverage in reliable sources, but certainly most have. I personally would lean toward some type of merger of many of these into groups (much like we might merge episodes of a season of a TV show) but unlike most TV shows, most (if not all) of these have significant third party coverage. It might be better organizationally to merge them though.  That said, that's not a topic for AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (Cross-posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)) Though it pains my little fanboy heart, these standalone articles are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. The articles are almost exclusively sourced from the Wizards of the Coast homepage and the blogs/Tumblrs/etcetera of the designers and staff that worked on the product, which means they are not third-party sources and therefore cannot be used as reliable sources. To respond to the comments saying we should keep these because Wikipedia is a good source of this information, I'd like to point you to the MTG Salvation Wiki as well as this list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and rationales why they are not useful. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.


 * A portion of the content could be merged into the main article. -- jonny - m t  01:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You may want to review your vote. Since nomination, all the articles now have on average 2 "third-party sources" as references, some as many as 5. Plenty more can be added. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback; I'll take a closer look, but from what I've seen so far the third-party sources seem to mostly be repeating release dates, etc. Incidentally, at the risk of being a stickler for language please note that this is not a vote but a discussion.


 * (FYI, it looks like you ran into a conflict edit and accidentally removed my not about crossposting. I'll go ahead and put it back.) -- jonny - m t  06:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The MTGset infobox template details is worth keeping, even if its all on one page (like a TV show season table). I'm DarkArcherPrince but it locked me out because I was too stupid to realize that the https and the http link are BOTH stored in Firefox but they're not the same :-( (feel free to run a checkuser) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.51.35 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep all as Lowellian said. I also agree with Leitmotiv: "the articles do exist out there, they just haven't been added as citations yet". Also I report that italian magazine "Oracolo", edited by Nexus Editrice, was an indipendent reliable source for over 14 years. Magic expansions received a wide coverage around the world, these articles definitely belongs to Wikipedia, if they are poorly made just improve them. I also suggest to keep each set as a separate article, I think each one deserve a certain level of detail. --Phyrexian ɸ 20:10, 9 October 2013 (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.