Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering deck types (4rd 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 but allow a merger discussion. "Too niche" is not a reason to consider something non-notable. Having sources does not by default entail notability either, but in this case the sources have not really been contested other than "too many primary sources" which appears to apply solely to some of the sources, and sources that have not been contested (on say lack of reliability, lack of substance, lack of independence or primaryness) are a strong claim to notability. GAMEGUIDE (which is the same thing as NOTMANUAL) may or may not be violated by this page but the arguments that it is not violated seem to go into more detail than the arguments that it is violated. Thus the delete case does not fly. Having said that a dedicated move, merge or restructuring discussion may yield a consensus to change the article, so I'll leave that possibility Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Various reasons: WP:NOTABLE, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:it's just a collection of links about niche strategy in a niche game, etc Hornpipe2 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically WP:NOTABLE. The article is not necessary "bad" and the editors have clearly gone to great lengths to source info and make it seem as notable and legit as possible - but at the end of the day, the subject itself is just Too Niche to warrant its own space. No amount of citations from WotC and Star City Games is going to help with that aspect. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Yu-Gi-Oh!_Deck_Formats_and_Strategies Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It occurs to me that a lot of CCGs and TCGs etc. have common deck themes (pioneered by Magic, perhaps) that a Notable article could be constructed from. Bits from this article could be used as supporting examples. "Deck Archetypes in Customizable Card Games" or something similar. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Magic: the Gathering. CJK09 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GAMEGUIDE is about video games, which this is not. Well written article, and very thoroughly sourced (there have been whole BOOKS written about this sort of thing). I have cancelled my "merge" vote from earlier. CJK09 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What about the other points though? WP:NOTABLE for example? "Thoroughly sourced" does not take away from the fact that it's still an article about specific M:tG Cards that you can put into your specific M:tG decks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornpipe2 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Minor nitpick, but this should be at (4th nomination), not (4rd nomination). CJK09 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL, which specifically includes "game guides" without qualifiers. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too niche, despite being well-sourced. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N, with plenty of independent sources that cover the topic in depth found in the article. Arguments for deletion are mostly WP:JNN arguments. We have articles on chess strategies because they are notable. This game isn't chess, but it is probably the second most important non-computer game created in the last 50 years. This isn't a manual or game guide. It describes (very) basic strategies. FYI, I've not played this game since about a year after it came out... Hobit (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this kind of sourced, secondary coverage (in this case, of deck typologies) is encyclopaedic and appropriate for WP. I see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the delete comments, but no clear policy basis - this is not any kind of "gameguide", but reliably referenced analysis, which is the kind of thing WP should have. The encyclopaedia includes a list of poker hands and a whole series of chess strategy articles; I don't think this one is any closer to GAMECRUFT than they are. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Magic: The Gathering#Deck construction Way too much unsourced detail - using too many primary sources. If this were a company article, the equivalent would be including an entire product operating manual as part of the article. No need for redirect - this should not be a subject that people will be searching for outside of the main article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:03, 19 August 2017 (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.