Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force of Will (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 delete. This is a close one - while Mangojuice certainly has the weight of words, his main argument was not left unaddressed and, as the only other opinion to follow it was 'delete', I don't believe it was persuasive enough to turn the consensus here into a mere majority.

Another keep argument I find interesting is Coredesat's assertion that "It's no Black Lotus, but can anything ever be?" - well, Black Lotus was merged with Power Nine, so if that's more important than this and it doesn't get its own article... --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

Individual Magic cards not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahamoti djinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razia, Boros Archangel, etc Andrew Levine 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Andrew Levine 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Not much experience in this area, but it is one of the (in)famous card in M:TG. But as all other cards on Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) as well as other sets, DELETE, and externalize the link at Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) would be most logical. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual magic cards don't appear to be notable and this one is hardly Black Lotus. MLA 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable card within the context of Magic: The Gathering, and information in this article is too much to add to an already huge MTG article. Rohirok 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm going to go keep on this one, because this is probably one of the most notable cards in the game. It's no Black Lotus, but can anything ever be? --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) or somesuch. If the Power Nine (including Black Lotus) weren't notable for individual articles, I don't think this is, either. Though, if merged, needs to be trimmed and such. (Some details are also a bit redundant, like explanation of the casting cost etc...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes Magic is notable individual cards are not. Black Lotus doesn't even have it's own article. Whispering^(talk/c) 23:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, but merely asserting that individual cards are non-notable doesn't make it so. Force of Will is a card of major importance, probably more important to the game than Black Lotus is. Black Lotus was merged into the power nine article because that is a group of cards that can be covered together, so a merge is sensible. There's a lot to say about this card, and plenty of sources to back it up. Check out this article, written 10 years after the release of this card. It was card of the day on June 20, 2006. The card is on the cover of Magic - The Gathering: Official Deckbuilders' Guide. Here's a couple from the official WOTC site, which features articles on Magic: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]; these are not articles about Force of Will but they do say interesting things about it. There are probably more, since there are 271 unique ghits on Force of Will at wizards.com alone. Keeing Mahamoti Djinn would have been totally crufty, but Force of Will? No. Mangojuice^talk 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it were the most famous and amazing Magic card in existence, would that really be enough? It's still nothing more than an individual Magic card. Keeping even one article on a single card would set a bad precedent, I think. Fortunately, like Black Lotus and the Power Nine as you mention, there is a group of cards that can be covered together with Force of Will, namely the expansion Alliances (Magic: The Gathering), which is really where any interesting information on FoW (like the helpful links you have provided) might best belong. Andrew Levine 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it would be enough. We have articles on individual Pokemon. We have articles on individual Family Guy episodes. WP:CRUFT is clearly the basis of any deletion argument here... but what about Wikipedia is not paper? An article can be written only on a select few magic cards that doesn't run afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V, and Force of Will is one of them. Okay, the current level of material in the article doesn't reflect this, but if I start compiling the info I found in those sources, it's going to need its own article, and it would deserve one. It doesn't make any sense to have a whole 3-4 paragraph section in Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) on one card: it's off topic, and would need to be spun off to its own article. But it's valid encyclopedia material. There's no reason we couldn't have an article just on the Black Lotus, it's just somewhat unnecessary because Power Nine covers it. But go look at that article, and look at how the topic of Black Lotus is covered. I just can't see the argment that other comparably important cards don't deserve comparable coverage, but it doesn't make sense to merge them. Mango juice^talk 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me put this another way. There's no point having an argument on the basis of our opinions, which is why notability is not even an official guideline, and WP:CRUFT is just an essay. The core policies of the encyclopedia are WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but it doesn't take much of an argument to describe a topic as "discriminate." If we can have an article on Force of Will that abides by the key policies, why shouldn't we? Mango juice^talk 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Alliances. Not notable enough really.VoA 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.