Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabian Nights (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. Without prejudice to any merger discussion. Sandstein 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering)

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

Non-notable component of a commercial gaming process, which fails WP:GNG. There article makes no assertion that the gaming pack has any real-world significance, let alone providing any evidence of it.

There are plenty of references, which initially looks impressive. However, all but two of the refs are to the website of the game's publisher "Wizards of the Coast", which is not an independent source.

The other two refs are to:

http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/products/arabiannights.php which looks like a fansite, and has non eof the characteristics of a reliable source
http://www.deckcheck.net/list.php?type=Mana+Ichorid&format=Vintage, which is a defunct website. I checked the page in the Internet Archive, but there doesn't seem to be any mirror of any substantive content

Editors may want to redirect the page title to Magic: The Gathering, though I have doubts that this is a plausible search term BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 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) 14:35, 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]

Keep See comments on other articles nominated for deletion. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:27, 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 17:01, 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) 23:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly adverse to an editorial merge, but the GNG really isn't a problem here, there was plenty of third party coverage in reliable sources as others have noted. So keep and have any merge discussion on the talk page. This doesn't belong at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 6 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.