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 redirect to Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Dominaria. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article, and wholly unsourced should not be merged.  Sandstein  05:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominaria[edit]

Dominaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, in-universe article with no independent notability established. Could not find RS in a google search, though there may be some (first-party?) books that mention it. Has been tagged for cleanup since 2006. Perhaps merge to the slightly better sourced Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Ost (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gerrard Capashen · Freyalise · Jodah · Serra · Thran · Urza · Volrath · Yawgmoth
Dominaria · Kamigawa · Mercadia · Phyrexia · Rabiah the Infinite · Rath · Ravnica · Shandalar
If we could get a consensus to merge all of these, that would be great. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you will manage consensus for merging without getting MTG project on board. I looked at Yawgmoth and wizards website had the maximum 1000 search results returned. There is so much information it is very difficult to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. Clearly all the pages at least need a re-write of the introductions and refs.Tetron76 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a merge isn't that intrusive. They are simply moved/redirected. If people find that they can fix the article, and bring it back, they can. As they are, they aren't notable, and should not be articles. I will notify the project. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer to see them merged and cut down to the information that is needed for an overview. However, there are what counts as a RS for notability issues especially re: www.wizards.com and I am guessing that one or two articles may prove contentious to people with in universe knowledge.Tetron76 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know for a reliable source to count for notability, it has to be third party(not affiliated with the subject), right? Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that sources are supposed to be independent, but I am also aware of the fact that there are print magazines on MTG and that WotC contains content forming more than one online magazine not 'zines. Some of which started out as print versions. WotC also own more than one book publisher name as a result of Hasbro buying pratically everything and some of these books do very well in terms of sales figures. They are also going to make an MTG film according to some newspapers. I am not sure that wikipedia is clear on defining the level of independence if notability allows for comments from experts in the field. While clearly most of the wiki MTG pages should not be there, I am fairly sure that there will be one or two that will be notable for their impact on the game.Tetron76 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2011 (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.