Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Nine

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Nine[edit]

This article is about nine cards from the collectible cards game Magic: The Gathering. It is full of game rules and interna which in my opinion are of no interest for an encyclopedia and should go to a Magic-Wiki (if one exists). -- 790 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Magic:The Gathering Wikia and this is the article on the Power Nine (for those considering Transwiki) --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are not just any nine cards. They are notable enough to show in a Google Scholar search. The nominator's reason of no interest is no argument, per WP:NOTINTERESTING. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as-is is written in a terrible in-universe style which does not reflect any real-world important outside of the MTG scene. I'm open to changing my vote given the article undergoes a serious rewrite. JuJube (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains almost no in-universe content. Consider the first card, for example: the Black Lotus. There is nothing about this flower in the world of Dominaria and its magical effects in that fictional universe. Instead the content is details like the artwork and artist; the value of the card in the game and in hard cash; and its status in tournament formats. This is all real-world content. Dismissing this by outside the MTG scene is otiose because most everything is unimportant outside its own scene. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lotus has unparalleled power in terms of mana acceleration, temporarily putting the owner 3 turns ahead in mana development. This advantage, combined with other efficient and powerful cards, allows its user to get so far ahead that victory can become inevitable as early as turn 1. Yeah, that's totally supposed to mean something to a non-player. JuJube (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading a mathematics article such as Direct sum. The Power Nine article is comparatively comprehensible for the layman. In any case, this is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The article does include real world references, such as information about the artists. Better this than an article about each card. Pburka (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's plenty of real world information here and real-world sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This is a very detailed article about a very narrow topic. It is just on the border of being game rules and minutiae. The Bearded One (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why has Wikipedia to mirror game- and fantasy-world-wikis, like it is the case here, as the weblink given by Lenticel shows? This seems to be plain nonsense to me. BTW I have been playing MTG myself, but I think there is no reason to repoduce complete fantasy worlds of recent origin here, when there are other places out there which specialise on that. -- 790 (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Wikipedia is a tertiary compendium of all the world's knowledge. The policy for inclusion is that the knowledge is covered not only in primary sources but also in secondary sources. So, by these terms of reference, every article here is, or should be, covered by layers of detail elsewhere. The existence of such secondary sources establishes notability rather than being a reason to exclude the material. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Wikipedia is not a compendium of all the world's knowledge, but an encyclopedia. As such it collects information about the real world. It does not need to go to depths over fantasy worlds, especially when these are only few years old, and their influence und durability in human culture has yet to be shown. Also, the existence of specialised wikis about such a topic may well indicate its overall notability, but that is no reason to go into all the gory details - Wikipedia ist not a game guide. -- 790 (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand that game guide point which is that articles shouldn't read like training manuals or textbooks - no problems, strategy and walkthroughs. Much or most of the material in this article is not like that. It just some facts about a notable selection of a few of the thousands of cards in a game which is played by millions. This is exactly what an encyclopaedia should contain. If you actually want to play Magic well, you go to another site to read up on the latest net decks. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing fantasy in this article. As has been pointed out before in this AfD, this article does not go into the details of flowers on Dominaria; it goes into real life things like these cards having incredible value both when played in a game (which is no more a fantasy world than chess or checkers) and because of that having high value in real life. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Prosfilaes & Colonel Warden. Article details their importance to Magic history as well as collectiblity. However article needs a clean up and more references. Stextc (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (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.