Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. The WP:GAMEGUIDE argument is not compelling enough to force a deletion without consensus: that policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play. Copyright violation has also been alleged, but the copyrighted work that this text supposedly infringes on has not been specified. Sandstein (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering rules
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is nothing more than an instruction guide on how to play the game, with no encyclopedic value to it. It's completely unsourced and what little outside notability the rules themselves may have can be mentioned in the main article. Many of the MtG related articles have similar problems, but this one probably the biggest violator. There is no reason to have a detailed explanation of the rules on Wikipedia. UsaSatsui (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Perhaps needs a rewrite to be more encyclopedic, but otherwise this is following precedent for a breakout section from the parent article. We have Rules of chess, which while might have more historical importance, is still the basic idea of this article. Joshdboz (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides that being a "What About X" argument, the rules of Chess are far more significant and probably have enough notability to stand on their own...also, a large part of the Rules of chess article is about the rules themselves, not just a rundown of the rules. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But considering this game is by all means notable, I see no reason why a section that is too large in the main article shouldn't be forked, so long as there are reliable sources. Joshdboz (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources. And it's not a "section fork".  It's not about the rules.  It is the rules.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep highly notable game, and this is a not unreasonable stylistic fork that appropriately expands on the material in the main article. JJL (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. It doesn't expand anything.  It just writes out the rules. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems that they already transwikied this one.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, its already on MtGWiki and that's where it belongs. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete yes, there is a "Rules of chess" article. Sorry, but I find the comparison of a game around for ever to... MTG to be pretentious. JuJube (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we are going to cover the game at all, the rules are a pretty central pillar in that coverage. Without it we get a lot of descriptions and fluff, but it will be all without a backbone. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide, this borderline copyvio has no place here. Link to a rules summary from the main article by all means, perhaps include a one- or two-paragraph summary, but don't include the entire ruleset here.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Wouldnt this call for a "rewrite"? Joshdboz (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A rewrite with a chainsaw in hand. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Lists (disrciminate and verifiable) and Five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Magic The Gathering of which there are multiple published versions. Clear consensus to keep in previous discussion.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:NOT. As stated above, this is borderline copyright violation, and is a synthesis of past and current MtG rulebooks to form a new "how to" guide.  Another significant difference between this and the article on the rules of chess is that the rules of chess aren't copyrighted.  --Craw-daddy | T | 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think "game guide" is per se a problem, as it's not providing suggestions about play or anything like it. But it is pretty much an instruction manual (though not in the sense I think WP:NOT implies).  In any case, I'm staying out of this.  I think keep and delete are both quite reasonable here.  Hobit (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a WP:GAMEGUIDE if I ever saw one. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:11, 20 April 2008 (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.