Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiquities (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 Shii (tock) 04:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)

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

Non-notable commercial product, fails WP:GNG. This is a part of a gaming set, and while the gaming set itself may well be notable ( I haven't checked it), this expansion set is not. The references are either to fansites (which fail WP:RS) or to the game's publisher Wizards of the Coast (which is not an independent source). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Magic: The Gathering is definitely notable as the first collectible card game. Regarding the expansions, there is an article for almost every set, and many of them are in similar shape. See Template:MTG navbox for a list. --jonny-mt 10:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't examined the notability of the main article, but it is probably a different case. The matter of it being the first collectible game is an assertion of importance, rather than of notability. A quick glance at Magic: The Gathering shows that although it is flooded with refs to the company's website, it does appear to have enough independent refs to satisfy WP:GNG.
  As to expansions, I will check out the others and may do a group AFD nom for them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also group nomination of other articles on MTG expansion sets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See comments on other articles nominated for deletion. There is no longer "an article for almost every set." There is an article for every block (recently consolidated); each block includes three expansions. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All SqueamishOrange's comments in the omnibus nominations above apply here - InQuest Gamer and Scrye extensively covered each and every set of Magic, including retrospectives for early releases such as these, and they were the two premier publications in the card-gaming industry in the 1990s; coverage has only increased since then as the game has become even more popular. Plenty of secondary source material here, even if that is not evident in the current revisions for some of these articles. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic: The Gathering early expansions: Yes, the article needs more sourcing. Yes, there's content that can be salvaged. No, it doesn't deserve its own article anymore than the recent expansions do (see the RfC at Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) for why they don't anymore). Yes, I've been toying with proposing that merge for a month now, and this seems as good a time as anyp b p 17:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read Scrye starting with the first issue, and the early issues definitely provided significant coverage even of the Magic sets that came out before the magazine started being published. I believe InQuest Gamer also covered the earliest sets. Calathan (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments in the related AfDs. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Cross-posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion (Magic: The Gathering)) Though it pains my little fanboy heart, these standalone articles are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. The articles are almost exclusively sourced from the Wizards of the Coast homepage and the blogs/Tumblrs/etcetera of the designers and staff that worked on the product, which means they are not third-party sources and therefore cannot be used as reliable sources. To respond to the comments saying we should keep these because Wikipedia is a good source of this information, I'd like to point you to the MTG Salvation Wiki as well as this list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and rationales why they are not useful. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.

A portion of the content could be merged into the main article. --jonny-m t 01:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review your vote. Since nomination, all the articles now have on average 2 "third-party sources" as references, some as many as 5. Plenty more can be added. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments in the related AfDs. --Phyrexian ɸ 20:20, 9 October 2013 (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.