Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planeswalker


 * 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   merge to Magic: The Gathering. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Planeswalker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not establish notability independent of Magic: The Gathering through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details and game details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The current article is unquestionably terrible.  However, Wizards of the Coast has made Planeswalkers the subject and "characters" of their advertising campaign for Magic in the past ~5 years or so.  This has included having well-publicized competitions featuring Planeswalkers (art / cosplay / etc.), media campaigns, etc.  They're pretty central to how the video game franchise of Magic functions.  Insert usual comments that Magic is a multi-million dollar business that gets mentioned in BusinessWeek articles on Hasbro's stock & the like.  If there's one fictional element of Magic that can have an article with all the real-world details, it's this one.  And some in-universe stuff is fine to explain what is going on, so at least some of the current article is fine. SnowFire (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those reasons are valid reasons to keep, as it implies inherited notability. --M ASEM (t) 14:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point, more specifically, is that there is sourceable coverage from non-primary sources on the topic. "Inherited notability" arguments are circular and tend to go nowhere and are applied inconsistently (good, because it's silly); existence of sources is more objective. SnowFire (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They may be non-primary (That's arguable) but they are definitely not independent/third-party, which is a requirement per WP:V. --M ASEM (t) 14:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge core deals to ... hmm, I'm not sure, all the reasonable targets have problems too, but the closest seems to be Magic: The Gathering Storylines. We don't need a comprehensive list of what cards are marked Planeswalkers, cutting out most of this article. What's left is a bit of plot on the concept of Planeswalkers, and how the game mechanic is used. Both can be converted in other articles. --M ASEM (t) 14:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect—So here's the thing. The article is completely sourced to wizzards.com, which appears to be run by the company that makes the game.  Oops, that's not exactly a good source to be making WP:N claims about. So then I tried Google and even a couple paid research sites, and nothing comes up as significant coverage of this type of character.  Sure the word appears in a lot of web content, but no coverage focuses on this character in any WP:RS that I can find.  So no real-world notability.  It seems like there should be, because this looks like a significant character in the game (disclaimer: I know next to nothing about MTG), but I just can't find it.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is something that should be notable, but if that notability can't be verified, well... - The Bushranger One ping only 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to Redirect, as others with more MTG experience have chimed in that this is a very important term. No opinion on merge or no merge - I'll leave that to the subject matter experts.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Magic: The Gathering. An intristic part of the game so worthy of inclusion there, and a very plausible search term. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Magic: the Gathering. Here's what you need to know:
 * In Magic lore, you dah planeswalker. Beginning with Lorwyn (was originally supposed to be Future Sight), planeswalkers were also printed as cards.  Five of them (the five that get reprinted again and again and again) are Ajani, Jace, Liliana, Chandra and Garruk.  Since they were introduced, they've often played major roles in the companion books that go along with the card sets.
 * You can say that in a couple of paragraphs in the parent article and don't need a separate article. p  b  p  20:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Magic: The Gathering. I agree with  SnowFire  and  The Bushranger that one would think that this would be notable. But I've been unable to come up with multiple in depth reliable sources for the planeswalkers themselves. Nonetheless, planeswalkers are well-verifiable and their importance to the game and the recent videogames is not in doubt.  Planeswalker is a reasonable search term and per WP:PRESERVE, preserving verifiable material is preferred over outright deletion. Hence merge to Magic: The Gathering is the best option, with no prejudice to recreation when multiple in-depth RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the article is redirected, I'd strongly be against a merge.  The main MTG article is overfull and has been for some time.  Just redirect it if no one wants to bother getting sources (which I'd like to say are out there, but this isn't an area of interest for me, so I'm not going to volunteer to be the one who finds them.) SnowFire (talk) 22:24, 16 October 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.