Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species in 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   delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

List of species in Magic: The Gathering

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an overly in-depth list of plot details unnecessary to understand the main topic of Magic: the Gathering. It lacks real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish notability. Such detail is more suited to Wikia, and anything discussing these elements can describe them in the relevant text. TTN (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I think this is also WP:FANCRUFT. epzik 8  20:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Good for a fan wiki, inappropriate for WP. --M ASEM (t) 05:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This needs trimming and sourcing, however as a group this squeaks past the notability bar for inclusion. Individually none (or very very few) of these would have any sort of notability, however the main concerns of the nominator here are issues for cleanup, not deletion, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the out-of-universe importance of species of MtG outside of that being a game mechanic (eg cards with abilities to affect cards of specific species)? --M ASEM  (t) 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that "discussing them in the relevant text", as suggested by the nominator, would require sufficient coverage in toto to require a WP:SPINOUT...which, well, here we are. It's also WP:CONSENSUS that lists like this are in fact appropriate; see for instance List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters and Ultra Monsters. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep, and both examples are ones I would consider for deletion as well. Particularly here, this is bordering on WP:GAMEGUIDE; the reader's understanding of MTG as a whole (the game or universe) is not lost if we remove this species list, since it is otherwise a typical fantasy setting and the species only has a small game mechanic effect. --M ASEM  (t) 01:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true that it's not a reason to keep, however it does provide an indiciation as to what sort of articles are generally considered acceptable. You know, recently there was a big brouhaha over this at ANI, and the accusation was made that there is a movement on Wikipedia to merge non-notable things like individual species and character articles for fictional properties to lists like this one, under the grounds (as is consensus and accepted practice) that while they're not notable individually, they're pefectly acceptable as part of a list - and then to attempt to delete the list so as to "purge" Wikipedia of the "non-notable fictional property". I scoffed at that there - except, now, I'm seeing it in action, with this and other perfectly reasonable lists being thrown under the AfD bus because some editors don't like it, and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper and shouldn't be treated like it is, and that WP:V is policy while WP:N is just a guideline that (as a guideline) can be expected to have perfectly reasonable exceptions, got forgotten somewhere along the way. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure where to start in looking for reliable sources. The Bushranger, do you have any ideas? That said, we do have "list of character" articles all the time for large series/franchises. MtG is pretty darn big and this is pretty much as high a level as you could get.  weak keep for now.  Hobit (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly MtG is not my main area of gaming interest (my knowledge is basically WP:ITEXISTS, alas). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete although I could be swayed if reliable coverage is shown to exist.LM2000 (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete—appears to lack reliable outside sources that would make it pass WP:GNG. N2e (talk) 19:36, 3 November 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.