Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (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 keep. The article's subject is found notable enough to merit inclusion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a large list of random plot details without any references to solidify it as an actual notable topic. The main Magic: The Gathering article has a four paragraph storyline section that should be adequate in properly summarizing the story from an encyclopedic standpoint. TTN (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are plenty of lesser-known properties in Category:Fictional universes or Category:Continuity (fiction). This page needs cleanup, but its main value is it prevents a large number of smaller articles from being created, namely for the settings, books, comic series, and other works listed on it. Its the target of 25 incoming redirects which are storyline focused and wouldn't find a good home on the main Magic: The Gathering article because it is so extensive and focused on the game itself. This franchise has 23 year history and, I don't say this often, but this kind of article is inevitable for something that lasts this long. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of "lesser-known properties" is not an adequate reason to keep. It's a ton of in-universe fancruft that needs to be deleted outright, not merged. WP:NOTINHERITED means the franchise's 23 year history is irrelevant.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - WP:DINC, This article needs more sources, but they do exist and just need to be added. (Edit - Not logged in) Apriestofgix (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Grudging Keep - Normally I would be all about deleting an article this long with almost no sources, but makes a good point. I would rather have one poorly sourced yet cohesive article than 25 poorly sourced articles doing their own thing. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's existence isn't some sort of gateway keeping out even more cruft. It being removed won't suddenly make people create articles. The idea presented up above that this kind of article just needs to exist is just sort of off. The information is either encyclopedic or not. In this case other than the weirdly placed list of books, it's just a bunch of summaries that provide no real context as to anything else. I don't see that improving. If this information was newly added to the main article, it would simply be pared down as being too extensive rather than split out. One "list of books" and one "list of characters" may be viable splits depending on available sources, but this is sort of the random junk article. TTN (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is common practice to include summaries of books and TV shows without citation as long as they are summaries of the source material. Because all the information included here is from the books/articles I believe the same logic should apply.  Hence my vote above about the sources being there, they just need to be referenced.  Apriestofgix (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Brief summaries would certainly be appropriate for something like List of Magic: The Gathering novels to give encyclopedic context to novels that probably don't have enough individual notability for the most part, but the summaries in this article are just "here's a giant blurb of plot without any real context." Within the framework of this article as a "gathering of all the MtG minutiae", there's just no room for improvement. There's certainly a place for plot, but the topic of the "Magic: The Gathering world" is not that place. TTN (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per all the above "keepers". BOZ (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As usual, the nom ignores the fact that the subject satisfies applicable notability guidelines in order to enforce their idiosyncratic editorial standards. This is not constructive behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to explain what the "applicable notability guidelines" are? Keeping poorly written fancruft out of Wikipedia is certainly constructive.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. None of the the arguments above advance a policy-based rationale for deletion or demonstrate how Multiverse meets WP:SIGCOV, and should thus be discounted. Fails WP:FANCRUFT as no sources can be found that demonstrate notability independent of the MTG franchise (or any notability at all), thus failing WP:NOTINHERITED.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Magic (The Gathering) instead as this is still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The page isn't perfect, that's for sure. But a quick search revealed a couple of sources that could be used to improve it. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  05:40, 1 May 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.