Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravager Affinity

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ravager Affinity

See precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U/G Madness and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligh. Andrew Levine 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Levine 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• As the main contributor to this article, I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive it's own page. From a scholarly point of view, there is IMO no deck that is more influential than Ravager Affinity in the game's history. The deck dominated tournaments in multiple formats, was at the forefront of the community for years, and caused unprecendented actions by the game's creators. I have tried my best to make this article encyclopedic. It has wiki code, the text I wrote is as clear as I can make it, and it cites references. It has no decklist, mulligan rules, game scenarios, play tips, sideboarding strategy, or metagame concerns. For contrast, here is an evolvutionary history of Ravager Affinity which is encyclopedic in nature and here is an example of a "strategy guide", what we in the community normally call primers, deck clinics, or in this case a tournament report, which are not encyclopedic. As a compromise, specific decks could be defined on their own list page or on their specific their archetype page. I have developed a decklist template but I have refrained from using it since it appears that Magic decklists are not encyclopedic but rigorous strategy detailing Two Knights Defense is. I could nominate Latvian Gambit for AFD for the same reasons here but it would probably be shot down, that and my stance on AFD is extremely lax for an Internet-based encyclopedia. NorrYtt 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive it's own page." Yes, this sounds about right. Please don't try to make comparisons between MTG and chess in terms of notability and significance. Magic has been around for 13 years and chess for more than a thousand (in its current form, about 500). Chess is played and/or recognized by many more people (by orders of magnitude) in many more countries than Magic. I won't even get into tournament attendance and prize payout figures. You bring up the example of the Two Knights Defense, which has existed for more than four hundred years and studied by every chess player above the beginner level for centuries; do you honestly think it's worth comparing its importance and notability to a Magic deck that did not exist three years ago? And please know that I say this as someone who has enjoyed Magic immensely for more than a decade, and who hasn't touched a chess piece in almost as long. Andrew Levine 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I will simply leave it that I am willing to keep most any article as long as its in the right place and could benefit someone. I feel more content is better than less (i.e. more professional). I feel if someone wants to know how to get all the Warp Whistles in Super Mario 3, they could find it tucked away somewhere. In the future, I will try not to waste so much of my time contributing to the AFD category. NorrYtt 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, it took me all of six and a half seconds to find that Super Mario 3 information with a Google search. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Andrew Levine 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per precedents. -AED 00:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As it happens, I'm a Magic player myself, and I can't imagine any one deck ever invented being noteworthy -- the more so in that by Magic's own tournament rules, almost any such deck will become obsolete within a year anyway. By contrast, there isn't a chess paradigm yet that needs to be banned from tournament play because people win too much with it. RGTraynor 07:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete"I must say that deleting this article is a decree that no Magic deck is significant enough to receive its own page." (You know we're just being mean because we used to play ourselves!) DanB DanD 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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.