Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules (3rd 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

This is basically just an expanded game guide, and it is not necessary for the general understanding of the subject. There is already a perfectly adequate section in the main article (Magic: The Gathering) that gives a general enough of an overview without going overboard. Compared to similar articles like Rules of chess, there is a lack of any commentary on the rules themselves, and it is unlikely much of anything exists covering that aspect of the topic. TTN (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The only differences in structure, language, tone, and content that I see between Rules of chess and this article is that Rules of chess contains a section on the history of the rules, a section on tournament rules, and that the rules are condensed and more concise. It is my understanding that the rules of MtG have undergone changes over time, and that articles have been written about these changes, so a history section could be added.  MtG has extensive varieties of tournament types and tournament rules, so a tournament section could be added.  And while the rules explanation in this article is a bit detailed and overly expanded, a cleanup could be performed to tighten it up to better fit our summary style.  As cleanup and expansion appears to be possible, and given that the current text is salvageable, I must !vote keep. Fieari (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. Fieari actually points out why the rules of chess article is notable on its own - it goes into a higher-level discussion of the origin and changes of the rules, and how those apply to tourney play. Additionally, there have been numerous books devoted to chess strategy and gameplay understanding, while there might be some books for MtG but nowhere near the same volume; most of MtG's meta-strategy is generally documented in blog and forum posts and not in RSes. There definitely does need to be some discussion of the core rules to understand how the game is played, which the main MtG page covers, but the level of detail here is unwarranted for WP. A supplimentary link to either a WOTC page on the rules or a wiki devoted to the rules would be an appropriate EL. --M ASEM  (t) 14:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - AfD is not cleanup. Here at AfD, we don't debate articles on their CURRENT merits, but on their POTENTIAL merits.  We don't delete articles for sucking, but for demonstrably never being able to not suck in the future due to lack of notability. Fieari (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Almafeta (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google Scholar references readily available through the find sources tool, above, seem to meet GNG for discussion of rules vs. just the game itself. I'd still suggest an extensive trim and refocus, but I think the notability is sufficient for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar gives me 8 hits, and none of those are RS works that given significant discussion of the MtG rules - they name drop them but not describe or dissect them in detail. Also, while I'm 99% confident this article passes the the GNG (guideline), it fail WP:NOT (policy) without the type of discussion that the rules of chess has to distinguish it from a simple how-to guide. --M ASEM (t) 14:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fieari's argument. This could definitely use a rewrite but it's not a game guide and does not need to be deleted. Khaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2016 (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.