Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering terms


 * 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 as an OR list of dicdefs. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Magic: The Gathering terms

 * — (View AfD)

Nothing but a list of unsourced slang. We're not a dictionary, let alone UrbanDictionary. This is not a list of keywords, that's separate, this is just slang made up by players without any documentation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep it, because magicplayers will automatically fill in more details. Mtg is a game that is expanding in so many conceptual directions that no single individual or group can contain it all. I for instance can easily envision a mtg only wp. Besides, slang will be incorporated into wp no matter what is done to avoid it. Wp will be subject to I-wars (information-wars), and biased oppinions will collide while "fanatics" of certain ideologies try to textually wipe out other articles with "intolerant" contents. As a defence mechanism people will turn to slang so that articles with their oppinion are not found and "errataed" by the opposition.
 * Delete Fancruft. Split Infinity (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete - horrible unsourced fancruft. wtfunkymonkey 03:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could certainly be better documented but if documentation is the reason for a deletion I would contest that citations could be found without too much effort. An article like this (from the game publisher) would cover a sizable chunk of the article. Being poorly sourced makes this a candidate for improvement, not deletion. Mr Bound 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: first party sources are typically not valid for citation. See WP:NOTE WP:RS and WP:INDY. wtfunkymonkey 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We're still not a dictionary, though, so we can't include things that are nothing more than a list of definitions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would appear that this article is what would be considered a glossary, and a look through the corresponding Wikipedia category Category:Glossaries (where the article in question is listed) would turn up a lot of similar articles such as Chess terminology and List of Final Fantasy VII terms. While I encourage you to take a look at the second and see what this article should probably look like (because it's thoroughly well cited and decently pruned, and because personally I think it's a similar level of notability), with regards to glossaries and AFD there doesn't seem to be a solid consensus. Several glossaries similar to this (with varying degrees of citations) have survived AFDs (slang for Police here and Internet slang here). The appropriate discussion (Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not) has yet to pass into policy. I think the article can be improved and pruned, and that some glossaries are worth including. Mr Bound 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The page you linked specifically states "Slang dictionaries, which contain mostly dicdefs and are not used to read an article (since we don't write in slang) are not glossaries under this definition." One of the two you linked survived on a no consensus with a lot of votes saying WP:ILIKEIT.  The other has citations for every single entry.  Individual neologisms without sources are considered unacceptable here; why should a few dozen of them without any sources be any better? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Tap: delete target article. It can't be regenerated This is an incomplete, arbitary and crufty list of dictdefs. MER-C 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * Weak Keep Needs rewritten, but it still is a good source for terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somitho (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete No verifiable sources means we're looking at original research. Therefore it violates wp:v and wp:or.  If it can't pass the 3 pillars, it doesn't belong. Alan.ca 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Delete. Eusebeus 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for basically every reason. It's entirely neologisms, it's completely unsourced and unverifiable, and it is guaranteed to contain at least some OR simply because slang terms by their very nature are subjective to one group or another (and therefore any "meaning" given to them is original research subjective to the giver).  I'd say speedy this article if at all possible -Markeer 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think these are dicdefs, but the article is a list of neologisms, so it's hard to verify and show notability. delldot | talk 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete by virtue of being slang. --Khaim 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Original research? I'm not saying every term on the page can be verified, but many can.  Those that can't?  Feel free to remove them.  Still wouldn't be original research, as that's about advancing a cause, but whatever.  However, the existence of the article itself doesn't violate any principles of Wikipedia that I know about.  Magic the Gathering is a real game, it is notable, and it does have a common vernacular shared among its players.  This can be verified from many magazines and articles.  (Scrye for example has  done it several times).  How a list of words common to a subject violates Wikipedia policy, I don't know, but if it does, how about deleting Category:Glossaries?  I'd especially include the Baseball jargon ones.  Or maybe Transwiki them to Wikitionary, if they belong there. FrozenPurpleCube 04:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being OR is not a deletion criterion, it is at most a reason for trying to improve the article. Moreover, this article has been cited by the game's manufacturer as a useful resource for players. Deleting it would put Wikipedia in the rather embarassing position of having people come here from WotC's site only to find the article they're looking for deleted out from under them. PurplePlatypus 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Being original research most definitely is a deletion criterion, per our No original research policy and our Deletion policy. It is one of our most fundamental deletion criteria.  And that people have been referred to an unencyclopaedic article is not a reason to keep an unencyclopaedic article.  Wikipedia is not a free wiki host.  If you want to make a case for keeping that holds water, rather than one that is in direct opposition to our fundamental policies, please cite sources to demonstrate that this article is not original research, is verifiable, and is not a mini-dictionary of slang. Uncle G 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, speaking for myself, I added two sources rather easily. It's about as easy for the rest of the terms that should be kept, and dump the rest.  So, OR as an argument for deletion is not that applicable here.  It's a clean-up issue for this article, not an inherent problem with the very concept of it.  The real question is, does a list of words common to a specific subject belong on Wikipedia.   And I think the plethora of glossaries indicates that there is some acceptance to their inclusion in Wikipedia.  If not, then we should be discussing that, then dealing with the articles like this. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, though vaguely possible article could be recreated in the future. If the article is to be saved (or for when/if the article is remade), I would recommend something in the form of List of Internet slang phrases- all entries must be referenced by a not-user-editable website, and at least two editors viligantly guard the article, ruthlessly deleting all additions that don't.  (That would mean that about 98% of the current article should be commented out or deleted.) SnowFire 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOT a jargon or usage guide, and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Board and table games. Collection of fan-created terms that fails to provide the reader with any encyclopedic info helping them to understand MtG in any context except fancruft.  Barno 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - While nearly incoherent and devoid of any reference to actual deletion criteria, the above post raises one interesting point. If this article flunks this AFD, as seems likely, could I get access to the text of it somehow? Whether you think it belongs on Wikipedia or not, this is valuable to certain people and deserves to be on some Wiki somewhere. PurplePlatypus 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in other AFDs there have been mentions of transwikiing to Wiktionary? Go ahead and do it if you feel compelled. Mr Bound 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an MTG wiki that is horrible and bad linked from the main MTG article's ELs currently. Just edit the source, select it all, and move it on over there- I'd been intending to do that myself, actually.  SnowFire 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Purple, yes I may seem incoherent, but only because I assume others posses the same knowledge as myself. It's a constant hindrance to my communication with other people. The most coherent thing I can state may be "Keep this magic stuff, change the parts you dislike if you know what magic is about, but never think of any knowledge as being useless". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.165.63.132 (talk • contribs)
 * Good idea, PurplePaltypus. here's a Magic the Gathering wiki, go wild. delldot | talk 05:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No can do. That site is BY-NC-SA, which is GFDL incompatible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because I'm following attempts to preserve this article if it fails AFD, can you expand what BY-NC-SA means? Mr Bound 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the Wikia one rather than the mtgsalvation one; it's at List of Magic: the Gathering slang terms on that site. It's not well-linked there but I assume that will come in time. Of course, as noted above, that whole wiki is in rather sad shape, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose. PurplePlatypus 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - not encyclopedic, complete cruft, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also unsourced, and WP:V and WP:RS - and also WP:OR, and OR synthesis - are not negotiable. Moreschi Deletion! 16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Moreschi said. Sandstein 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Instead of deleting this article, I think the various statements should simply be sourced and cited. ComradeAF 17:31, 23 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.