Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)
- Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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)
- See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.