Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgment (Magic: The Gathering)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judgment (Magic: The Gathering)

This page was VfD'd June 25 with the following vote by User:Zantastik, but it was never listed. Completing the nomination. No vote. -- Grev -- Talk 03:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Magic: The Gathering -- Zantastik talk 07:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This should be merged with Magic: The Gathering. DarthVader 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Is this not simply another 'expansion set', as listed here: Magic:_The_Gathering_sets#Expansion_sets? What of: Torment_(Magic:_The_Gathering) and Onslaught_(Magic:_The_Gathering)? Surely this can potentially be expanded to the extent of many of the other 'expansion set' articles. That is of course not to mention the complications of merging an infoboxed article with the main article. Seeaxid 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Seeaxid. Good point. -mysekurity 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Existing Wikipolicy on M:tG expansions seems to be to give each their own page, as evidenced by the fact that most of them have their own articles (and at least one of those articles, the Legions page, is literally a one-line substub). In short, there's a precedent for keeping it, and while that precedent may not be smart, I don't think this is the place to overturn it. Marblespire 09:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing this to my attention. DarthVader 11:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep(<-- See below). That's to some extent what I was saying, but it seems I was misinterpreted. Oh well, Seeaxid 12:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Sets in order of release:
  • Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering) created Apr 2005
  • Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering) created Apr 2005
  • Legends (Magic: The Gathering) created Apr 2005
  • The Dark created May 2005
  • Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) created May 2005
  • Fallen Empires created May 2005
  • Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) created May 2005
  • Homelands (Magic: The Gathering) created May 2005
  • Mirage, Visions and Weatherlight do not seem to have articles.

And so on... obviously the idea of "Existing Wikipolicy" is kind of an odd thing in the face of such new (and sometimes non-existing) articles. -Harmil 12:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I sincerely fail to grasp what contention you are making. Seeaxid 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep--individual sets are notable (the same is not true for most individual cards). Meelar (talk) 14:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, potential for expansion. Kappa 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redir all, or have one single article for all MTG card sets. Also, if it's unlikely to be included in Wikipedia 1.0, why go on at length? My ass has "potential for expansion"--doesn't make it encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 15:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Harmil. Almafeta 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mr Bound 23:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Zero significance outside of the game itself. -R. fiend 03:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  Yet there are about a bajillion articles with: "Zero significance outside of the game itself" about Pokémon to be found here: Category:Pokémon. They are all connected through categories. If this were to be merged, would it not be appropriate to also merge all of the other 'expansion sets' (or even all of the articles in the Category:Magic: The Gathering which have "Zero significance outside of the game itself"). Yet merging all of them would be utterly impractical as the page would end up so enormously large and cluttered. Furthermore, already at the top of Magic: The Gathering it is said: "This page is 37 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." So while it may seem more appropriate to have all of the information about every one distinct topic each in their own single article, for topics which a large amount of information, this is simply impractical. Seeaxid 04:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, but if merged, merge to an article on the expansion sets, not to the main article, which is large enough already. -Sean Curtin 06:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but merge to one article per triad of sets (they release one major and two minor sets in sequence, all three in the same world). Radiant_>|< 13:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough, not running out of paper. Unfocused 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. If the article is merged, would have to merge all expansion articles, bloating the main Magic article. GeeJo 05:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merging all the expansion article in to a single expansion article might solve that problem. -R. fiend 06:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Or it may give a slighlty less gigantic article. Many of the other expansion set articles have much information in them, this one, as a few of the other ones, does not. However, does it not seem logical that this article has potential to expand to the extent of some of the larger expansion set articles, for example, Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering)?
    • Besides, isn't this votes for deletion. Wouldn't it be better to propose merging them here: Talk:Magic: The_Gathering sets Seeaxid 09:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Personally, keeping the system as is, and Radiant!'s idea of merging them in triads, seem the most logical, but, I really think its pertinent to take the discussion to Talk:Magic: The_Gathering sets (I don't think this is an appropriate place to discuss it) or if not that, then we should keep and expand. Seeaxid 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  Actually, perhaps it would be better to take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, that is to say, that such an action would probably be in conflict with Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, and let me quote: "the goal is to create articles on each and every Magic: The Gathering set."(my bold). This "vote" does not belong here, it should be discussed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Seeaxid 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Expansion sets have enough notable material to belong in their own pages. Abitrarily merging some seems counterintuitive. -- Norvy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  One doesn't even need a 'vfd' to have an article merged, perhaps Wikipedia:request for comment would have been more appropriate. Seeaxid 08:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand.  Grue  19:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is WoTC's core business, and each MTG set is the same as a publisher printing a best-selling book or album.  The Steve  06:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: This discussion, as Seeaxid said, does not belong here. Current policy is to eventually have a well-developed page for each expansion set. Andrew Levine 11:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Many of the M:tG expansions have well developed pages and this one just needs a little love. -- Nis81 13:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Most of the expansions seem to have pages, and this doesn't seem much different from having an article on a best-selling book Salsb 20:58, 15 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.