Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (4th 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here. A discussion on whether to merge or not can continue on the article's talkpage and does not require a relist Star   Mississippi  11:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

List of Magic: The Gathering keywords
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Almost entirely primary sourced, Wikipedia is not a game guide, Keywords from unrelated sets are not generally discussed as a group by sources as required by WP:LISTN. I am aware of the three previous AfDs, but I believe Wikipedia's standards have tightened in the last 11 years and it is time to re-evaluate. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as a table into Magic: The Gathering rules. We don't need 175 individual subsections, each on a word as used in a game. BD2412  T 22:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that having a 175 entry table would be an improvement to that merge target? Hobit (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Lists.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  03:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Inclined toward keep as just as good a glossary article as any (albeit on a not very serious topic), though it could be reformatted using the glossary templates instead of using section markup. I think merging this into the main MTG article would result in a size problem and just eventually another split-out. But, prefer merge over deletion. I haven't pored over the previous discussions in detail yet, and am not sure yet how to evaluate the claim that "Wikipedia's standards have tightened in the last 11 years and it is time to re-evaluate"  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to MTG rules page, and rewrite as a glossary/defn list. MTG is large enough that its keyword list should be included, but without anything but primary sources, no more than one or two sentences on each keyword are needed. --M asem (t) 14:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge (Amended. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)) I am agreeing with, and there is at least a limited amount of treatment in secondary sources: Game Design Deep Dive, Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design, How to play Magic: the Gathering – A beginner’s guide. And more on individual keywords, as indicated by in the last deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All those sources establish, IMO, is that the evergreen keywords should be listed at Magic: The Gathering rules (and, now that I think about it, oddly aren't). The sort of source that could convince me this list deserves to exist is something like this from Dicebreaker (but one source can't by itself support an article), not brief discussions of the concept of keywords, or lists or just the evergreen ones. Consider this: all of the sources provided (that include a list at all) include it in the context of a broader article on the rules. That seems to imply that Wikipedia should do the same, and not have a separate article on the subject. * Pppery * it has begun...  22:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, keep or merge then. It's a question of size in the end. If someone prefers to merge it into the rules article in a reasonable way, considering the possibility to split it out again if it becomes too large, I am not opposed to that. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * keep sources meet the GNG. Yes, there is a potential merge target, but to merge even a fraction of this would be a WP:WEIGHT issue.  Yes, it's geeky.  Yes, it thinks about being a WP:GAMEGUIDE issue, but it's not.  It lists rules (most of which have independent, reliable sources).  Many of this keywords themselves meet the GNG.   Yes, it feels somehow less important, than say our numerous articles on chess.  But it meets our guidelines and is frankly a reasonable breakout article.  It could use a bit more context/framing for certain, but that's not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2023 (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.