Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering rules

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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magic: The Gathering rules

Wikipedia is not instructive. The level of detail this article goes into is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The official rules (117 pages) are readily available at the official website. I also have doubts that showing this many cards constitutes fair use. Delete -- Norvy (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If the article goes into too much detail, it needs to be pared down, not deleted. The official rules are indeed available, but are much, much less helpful to the layman than this article is. I believe this article is perfect for describing how Magic is played; it's not in any way an "instruction manual". The 117 pages you mentioned are an instruction manual. The fair use issue is a legitimate concern, but simply is not valid support for the deletion of the article; only for deletion of some or all of the card images.

(NB: my explanation should not be construed as support for paring down the article or deleting card images; it's just the reason why deleting the article would be unreasonable, IMO. No more, no less.) --Ashenai 14:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. An encyclopedic article can be written about MTG rules without it turning into a how-to guide. The solution here is editing, not deletion, and I don't think too much paring needs to be done, really. android79 15:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic topic, can be pared down as necessary. Kappa 16:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This game is notable enough that quite a bit of detail is warranted, though editing is a good idea. --Quintin3265 17:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; this is a pretty good overview of a 117-page document. If it needs to be edited, so be it. -- Grev -- Talk 17:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment So are we going to start posting the rules for every game in wikipedia? I'm fairly ambivalent to having separate pages like Sorry! rules or Candyland rules. I understand the main article for MtG is much longer than the articles for either of those games, but still...

If there is sufficient content for an article--separate of the game page itself--is there any reason why we shouldn't? Sorry! just doesn't have enough rules, history, and just plain content to make it worth splitting up into separate articles. Magic does.

To use a different parallel: one or two articles seems to be plenty for Lugbara mythology. You think that based on that, we should condense, say, Christianity into a single article, too? ... clearly, there is just vastly more content on some games (or religions) than others, which translates to more articles. --Ashenai 19:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument, so no vote on this one. The image usage may create a very legitimate fair use issue though.--Isotope23 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

MTG rules are convoluted, complicated, and changes to them have been controversial. They have evolved over time and have an interesting history. One cannot really say the same thing for Sorry! or Candyland. A better comparison would be Poker, which has many sub-articles on gameplay. A very nice encyclopedic article can be written about MTG rules, and I think we already have one (that could perhaps use some editing). Concerns about image fair use are not relevant here and should be taken up at WP:PUI if an editor so desires. android79 18:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; I've always wanted to learn how to play that game but this definitely is an instruction guide. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^{(Contributions)} 20:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I will volunteer to make it less of a how-to. I think I can turn it into an encyclopedic article. Of course, this probably means reading that 117-page document, so give me a little while – I just got back into the game. :-) (BTW, it is a very expensive hobby.) android79 21:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I just went through the whole thing with a fine-toothed editing comb, and I really do think it's encyclopedic as is. Frankly, I don't quite understand what the problem is. Is Rules of chess also unencyclopedic? (No sarcasm intended, I really want to know.) --Ashenai 11:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The "Wikipedia is not instructive" thing is somewhat overstated. For example, it is right that the Pancakes article, for example, contains what amount to recipes for the food, even though this is - technically - not allowed because of the policy you quote. This page is a valuable resource for many people, and is encyclopaedic, just as the Gin rummy article contains the insturctions for how to play the game. This is just an extension of that. Also, I think your Fair Use comment is not true. I think Fair Use could very reasonably be asserted for all the images. Batmanand 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but recommend cleanup to make more concise and encyclopedic. It's a good detailed description of the game. -- MCB 00:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I can see how edits might be necessary. To be honest, as the person who created this page, I was trying to removal a substantial section of the main article and put it on a separate page. It sort of blew up from there. On the other hand, I think the comparison with Poker is a entirely valid, so it really may not be as much of a problem as it seems. --Khaim 01:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Magic:The Gathering is a major game which very many people play, and so a detailed article on its rules is as valid as articles describing the rules on chess, checkers, go and bridge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per everyone else. This article serves as a useful guide to an extremely notable and popular game that is recognised worldwide. Piecraft 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator took policy totally out of context. ··gracefool |☺ 18:35, 25 September 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.