Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering deck types (2nd 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   keep. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering deck types
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is pretty much game guide information without any real possibility of being reformatted into something more encyclopedic. TTN (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GAMEGUIDE only applies to videogames but this is a card game. I tried nominating a chess opening once to test this and the result clearly showed that the community does not wish to delete such articles. Warden (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What does the community's vote on another afd have anything at all to do with whether this article meets the criteria for deletion? Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, in this case a how-to on how to build decks. At the very most this would be worth a small mention in the main article, but for the most part the content of this article is very gamecrufty.  This isn't like a chess opening article, of which most chess openings have been covered in numerous reliable sources and established notability in history, which is the only reason so many articles for chess openings are allowed to exist.  Real-world information is the basis for such articles on Wikipedia.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 23:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When you use insulting language like "gamecrufty", you're making a value judgement and that's not WP:NPOV. This game is has a significant tournament scene, like chess, and likewise has an extensive literature of analysis and strategy.  The material in this article is sourced and so there seems to be no objective reason to discriminate between this and articles such as the Hedgehog. Warden (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability needs to be shown through reliable sources, and that's the crux of the issue here. Trust me, I'm familiar with what gamecruft is as a frequent editor of video games articles.  In order for there to be notability, you need to show why in the real world this is notable.  Just because content is sourced doesn't mean it's not a directory; notability of why deck strategies themselves are important would need to be established (i.e. are tournament winners and their deck strategies covered in reliable sources?  Are strategies of decks really notable in the real world and not just in the Magic: The Gathering community and universe?)  So yes, unless you can show that the strategies themselves show notability, like those of the chess moves that you've mentioned, then this is merely a directory and does not assert notability independent of its subject, which means it should not have an article on Wikipedia.  Such information may be more appropriate for a Wikia project on Magic: The Gathering, in which case I might recommend a transwiki.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 03:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikia is a commercial site which exists to make a profit by advertising. We should no more support that than we do Wikitravel which the WMF openly undermined by hosting Wikivoyage as a non-commercial rival.  If you want to make money for advertisers, please go to a different project.  Warden (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The issue here isn't whether or not MTG related articles are culturally worthy of being covered here - the issue is whether the topic has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As I see it, the article has a ton of sources, none of which appear to qualify - it's mostly wizards.com and Star City Games. I could be persuaded to change my opinion here if someone presents real evidence of in-depth secondary source coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see any indication of notability here, and my ignorant searches turned up little but Pojo's Unofficial Guide, a Prima Strategy Guide, and a whole lot of fansites.  If nobody can come up with sources to demonstrate notability, I agree with Nwlaw63 that this should be deleted.  Famous chess openings at least have the benefit of notability, even if they do violate WP:NOTHOWTO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems easy to find numerous books on the subject including:
 * Pro Magic: The Art of Professional Deck Construction
 * Magic: The Gathering Advanced Player's Guide
 * Baxter on Magic: A Guide to Proper Playing Techniques
 * Deckade: 10 Years of Decks, Thoughts, and Theory!
 * Mastering Magic Cards
 * The article in question seems be a good encyclopedic summary of the general strategy - it's not one page per deck type, as we have with the hundreds of pages about individual chess openings. Discriminating between these games to allow chess free rein to create hundreds of pages while destroying a summary level article like this would not be WP:NPOV.  Warden (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Colonel Warden, allow me to politely stop you here because I'm not sure you're understanding the main point, and I'd like to help you understand. Let me make an example here using a chess article: let's just say Sicilian Defence for example.  It has several sections explaining it in detail, but only one of them establishes notability for an article, and that's the History section.  That section is real-world coverage in reliable sources; the rest of it is merely detail for comprehensiveness, and it is because of that section that Sicilian Defence even has an article; if it did not have this section and there were no notability to this move in the real world, there would not be an article here on Wikipedia, and the same would be the case with most chess move articles if they did not have similar, well-sourced sections.  Now, let us return to Magic: The Gathering.  What this article is missing is that real-world assertion of notability; outside of Magic: The Gathering, why is this important?  Obviously Magic: The Gathering in itself is notable, but why are its specific deck strategies notable in the real world independent of the subject?  That is the difference between what is article material and excessive in-universe material, commonly termed "cruft" by the community.  As it stands, this article would only be useful to Magic: The Gathering players, and that makes it more suited to a Wikia project, but not for Wikipedia.  I still welcome your Keep decision, but if you are looking to try and have this article kept, I would recommend trying to find any real-world information that makes it notable, such as reliable news coverage of tournaments, but something that makes more than just a passing mention of the subject of deck strategy (see WP:GNG for info on what makes a subject notable).   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 14:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Sicilian Defence is probably the best known opening - I was taught it in school. For a more crufty opening see the Hippopotamus Defence.  That has a book about it but that was published by Batsford Chess Books - a specialist imprint which obviously focusses on chess in the same way that WotC's publications focus on Magic.  No difference. Warden (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GAMEGUIDE specifically does not apply to games other than video games (and indeed, it has been argued in the past that that particular portion of the howto article was an unfortunate enshrining of the video games wikigroup guidelines, but as it is not targeted at other games, we needn't worry about it.) More generally speaking, this article doesn't tell you how to play the game. WP:GNG is clearly met and it is clearly notable. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Side note - nom should fix the link to this AfD on the article page, it appears to be broken. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have never agreed that the deletionist demand for "show an element of X is relevant outside of X" makes any sense.  Discharge petition has no relevance outside of US politics - no side references or books or songs - Boy Scout Merit Badges have no relevance outside the Boy Scouts, etc.  The better standard is existence of reliable sources, which do exist for this article.  For those worried by wizards.com appearing a lot, I will reminder non-Magic players that aside from producing the game, WotC also runs the premiere online magazine for the game.  There are perhaps issues with neutrality, but it is no worse than, say, citing Nintendo Power for information about 1990s Nintendo products.  Anyway, wizards.com is the authoritative voice for what the WotC developers publicly say, so it's absolutely reliable in that regard, and it's presented as such rather than fact.  And as already noted, if the concern is too much primary sourcing, there do exist plenty of secondary websites & books that cover this material. SnowFire (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, the developers can speak authoritatively about the subject, but primary sources like that are more suited to a fansite on Wikia than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It's not a matter of deletionism; it's a matter of satisfying WP:V and WP:N, which are policies.  If independent, reliable sources do not consider the topic noteworthy, neither do we.  WP:WHYN has good answers as to why we have these policies in place.  People who want detailed, in-universe guides can always reference Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Warden's book list. These strategy guides discuss the game (in particular, they discuss deck types and deck selection strategy) and provide a in-depth real world perspective on the game. Pro Magic: The Art of Professional Deck Construction and Baxter on Magic: A Guide to Proper Playing Techniques were published by Wordware, a publisher independent of WoTC. With multiple such books to draw from, there are multiple in depth independent reliable sources available to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG. I'll note that notability, as described in WP:Notability, is based on verifiability and the ability to create a neutral article based on independent reliable sources, not some vague notion of importance outside of the topic's field. The article itself could use more secondary sources and citations to those sources. But these are surmountable problems per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Warden's list still doesn't contain any reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell. Self-publishing 100 copies of a book does not equate to a reliable source. Wizards.com is a primary source, and while it can be cited, it still leaves a gaping whole where secondary sources should be. Fan sites, Wizard sites and self-published books don't meet this standard. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that Wordware is not a reputable publisher? Their catalog is mostly of computer and game design books. The two books I noted above were published in the mid 90's, long before self-publishing became common, so I expect the books had the same sort of technical and editorial review typical of other Wordware books at the time. The two books look reliable to me, but perhaps you have other information to dispute that assertion. --Mark viking (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, despite the need for comprehensive reworking. There are stacks of books on the topic, all the way back to Wordware's publications in the mid-to-late 90s (which are certainly independent), plus no shortage of coverage in periodicals such as Scrye and Lotus Noir. It's entirely possible to have a History section; the core concepts here did not spring fully-formed, but have an identifiable history.  Indeed, the book Deckade (mentioned above, and not published by Wizards of the Coast) devotes considerable space to just that idea.  As is often the case at AFD, the article we have now is wretched.  That's not supposed to be a deletion criteria when material exists to fix it (except in the worst cases, which I don't think this is...). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 11 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.