Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magicthegathering.com


 * 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 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Magicthegathering.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Whilst the game it represents is notable, I'm doubtful we should have an article about a section of a company's website. In my eyes this at least should be merged to Magic: The Gathering but I'm again doubtful it warrants a mention there. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment / Keep . First the comment part.  This article's predecessor was nominated for deletion before at Articles for deletion/Gatherer in 2005, where it was (incorrectly in my opinion) kept.  I moved the article and expanded its focus awhile back, but haven't maintained it since.  Note that to be accurate, the article should probably be moved to MTG Daily now, as the maintainers decided that not having a name and just using the URL was a bad idea.
 * As for the keep part. Normally, sure, a section of a company's website is non-notable.  However this is not just a section; this is an entire online newsmagazine that happens to be hosted off their official site.  Magicthegathering.com / MTG Daily is the continuation of WotC's defunct dead-tree magazine The Duelist and was merely moved online after the economics of magazine publishing started to go downhill with the growth of the internet.  Think the Seattle Post-Intelligencer but on a smaller scale.
 * I did a quick Google for secondary sources. The main "problem" is that the main other Magic sites on the Internet refer to mtg.com / MTG Daily *constantly* but also often trivially ("WotC says here (link)...").  However I can pretty much assure you that non-trivial coverage does occur (I distinctly recall reading Starcitygames.com whining about how magicthegathering.com would hire away all their best writers).  I'll drop a note on the project page for people more current than I to see what they have. SnowFire (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I go to the website almost every weekday. I would have no idea what MTG Daily meant if I saw it in a list, but would know the full URL.  Surely others are the same way, so I'd weak oppose a name change.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  02:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Week Keep per Snowfire. Major source for a major game, but lack of secondary sources could be problematic.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a while searching, and the best I could personally come up with is this after crawling around Google for a few dozen pages of results on various searches (though I did find a thing or two on Starcitygames.com that refused to give me working URLs...). I don't think we'll be able to find enough sources for WP:N to really be satisfied, because, as SnowFire notes above, all I can find is constant trivial references.  But at the same time, there is some good content there (though admittedly the article could use some heavy pruning; a barely-not-a-stub seems about the right length to me) and there isn't really room for that content at Magic: the Gathering, as that article is already overcomplete.  This may change in the near future (I'm going to set about some subtractive editing of the article fairly soon), but it can be revisited on the talk pages and by the project at that time.  I'd say weak keep in favor of other options, overall.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 00:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I agree with Snowfire and Bedford. Also regarding moving the article to Daily MtG: that should be done. I agree that many people will not recognize Daily MtG (personal experience), but a redirect will remain at magicthegathering.com anyway. OdinFK (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to mtg and/or magicthegathering (MTGSalvation's license is incompatible), with a partial merge into Magic: The Gathering. Not notable enough separately from the game to warrant its own article. Neon  Merlin  03:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's no room at the main M:TG article.  If this is merged anywhere, I'd tentatively suggest The Duelist.  Kind of amusing...  The Duelist certainly had higher production standards, due to actually charging money and thus having a staff of noticeable size, but the Daily MTG website surely hits more eyeballs than The Duelist ever did.  A dead-tree magazine's notability is pretty much self-evident, though, since it's a mini-business despite having less "influence."  Changing times... SnowFire (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge, unless there are secondary sources out there that establish notability. There probably doesn't need to be this much content there.  Croctotheface (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (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.