Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (3rd 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   no consensus. This article essentially ends up living in an overlap of two conflicting arguments, both of which have merit. Wikipedia is not a game guide advises us to avoid articles that simply describe and elaborate on how to play a game beyond mere encyclopedic coverage - and it has been correctly argued that this article comprises just that, even if the policy only explicitly mentions video games. Simultaneously and conversely, our manual of style and guidelines regardingglossaries of specific terms and, more generally, splitting out overly lengthy topics from otherwise notable articles, demonstrate how an article like this can be useful in an encyclopedic context, providing an easy way to clarify the jargon inherent in the notable game Magic: The Gathering. I cannot honestly say that either of these arguments 'wins' this discussion, either by volume of people or strength of arguments. ~ mazca  talk 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is simply a guide to the keywords used in Magic: the Gathering (GAMEGUIDE). All of the sources are "first-person" ones that were pulled from the Magic website and from the Magic developers, I see no evidence of notability of this topic (obviously Magic: the Gathering is notable). Bulwersator (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I hope that it may be moved to wikibooks or to other better place Bulwersator (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Essentially a 76-kilobyte game guide. J I P  &#124; Talk 15:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Has anything changed since the last AfD nomination? I see no new reasons presented why this should be deleted. In the last nomination I think the same reasons were presented and the proposal was rejected. OdinFK (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears last time was a no consensus (originally closed as delete, overturned to no consensus in review). - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge This is obviously a spinoff from the main article. If the game is notable and has significant jargon then a glossary seems reasonable - see glossary of chess and glossary of poker, for example.  Note also that WP:GAMEGUIDE is specifically about videogames and this is a card game. Warden (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the triviality of the GAMEGUIDE issue (in that it just only mentions VGs) - WP does allow glossaries, and given the age of topics like chess and poker, it's understandable for these topics, where probably 1000s of sources exist, to have such discussion. MTG is a rather new game (in relative terms) and while I'm sure there's plenty of articles about the game, it certainly doesn't have the same depth as these age-old games, questioning the need. Even as such - if this list is going to exist, it needs to follow WP:GLOSSARY, and thus be trimmed in description as per both examples above, and expanded to include all MTG keywords. --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GLOSSARY is a glossary of Wikipedia terms. I think you were looking for WP:GLOSSARIES, which is another name for Manual of Style/Glossaries - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant. --M ASEM (t) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Regarding sources, all of these keywords have explanations on the cards themselves, and more than enough independent sources exist verifying the content of said cards, so I don't think any of the content here has sourcing problems. Given that the game itself qualifies as notable, descriptions of game mechanics seem acceptable as well.  This page doesn't go into strategy or advice, which I would definitely agree does not belong. I also agree with the point that nothing has changed since the previous two AfD nominations, and I'd question why a third seemed appropriate. --Josh Triplett (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that it is hoax but that it fails WP:GNG Bulwersator (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be incorrect there. Most of the refs are from the Wizards website, but there are some third party sites. It could afford more, but I assure you they exist; Magic is big enough that multiple third party sites exist covering its nuances (Channel Fireball, Star City Games, etc.) Please consult WP:BEFORE before submitting an AfD. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator cites WP:GAMEGUIDE, which does not cover physical games, and, even if it did, the content here would not run afoul of it ("An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right [...]. Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.") Beyond that, there is plenty of independent RS coverage of MtG which includes these keywords, such as ABC(au), Gamezone, and Wired--and that's just a sampling for trample, cycling, and unblockable. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The intent of GAMEGUIDE - and the policy around it - clearly applies to any type of game with rules. Unless the rules are of detailed examination (as with something like chess, a complete rundown of said rules is never appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26 is also relevant to this discussion; an overturning of the second AfD vote to Delete despite the nominator attempting to withdraw the nomination, with a no-nonsense definition of GAMEGUIDE by PeaceNT that caused even Stifle to vote Overturn. Anarchangel (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (as unlikely search term) and summary in main MTG article. Violates WP:GAMEGUIDE as well as probably concepts relating to WP:DICTDEF. (Technically this is a glossary, which can be allowed for broad topics that need a common point of terminology reference.  This is not one of those broad topics.)  Understanding that cards in MTG have these modifiers that affect the normal rule cycle, as well as an example or three, is completely fine in the body of describing the game.  Plus, since we can also link to the official rules in the game article, this is extremely duplicative. --M ASEM  (t) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with extreme cleanup. Though I'm usually the first to cry foul when people cry WP:GAMEGUIDE, this is sort of close. It is really packed to the gills with fancruft at the very least, even if it's not really a strategy guide. And yes, folks, I agree bullet point 3 under WP:GAMEGUIDE is talking about videogames, bullet point 1 can apply to anything. But to me, the fundamental question is this: is it really within the scope of wikipedia to collect a comprehensive description of every keyword in the game? I'm thinking not, though I do think a shorter list of currently common keywords can be helpful is letting readers grasp the game and in the scope of wikipedia. I'm seeing the point of the delete folks, but am erring on the side of a weak keep here on the principle that AfD is not cleanup. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the WP:GLOSSARIES that Masem attempted to cite above is fundamentally what I am getting to here. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ugh. Falls foul of WP:GAMEGUIDE ("...avoid lists of gameplay... concepts, unless these are notable in their own right") and common-sense dictates that rule applies here. See also WP:NOTMANUAL. Zero independent, reliable evidence of the accuracy/notability. Zero analysis of the subject matter because such an endeavour is impossible for a list of "abilities" for a marginally-popular card game. This article is absolute crap and I see no possibility that it could be improved due to the subject matter being unencyclopaedic. I'm sure it's very WP:USEFUL to Dungeons & Dragons fans and that they really WP:LIKE it, but that is no reason to prolong the life of this woebegone fancruft. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 10:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "marginally-popular" is rather poor description, this game is quite popular Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fine distinction is noted :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 09:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * marginally-popular!?? How many games are there in ? And how many of them are more popular? Yes I know this is OT but I couldn't help myself from replying. --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 09:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the oldest and most popular (over 12M players) among List of collectible card games. Enough?! --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is nothing but a game guide, with practically no out-of-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF and WP:GAMEGUIDE. For the purpose of the delineation of our scope, there is no difference between video game guides and other game guides.  Sandstein   08:05, 24 May 2012 (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.