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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering deck types[edit]

Magic: The Gathering deck types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is as much WP:GAMEGUIDE as it gets, innit? —Wasell^(T) 14:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I actually don't like this article, but (as I mentioned in the last nomination), WP:GAMEGUIDE is about video games. This in not a how-to guide, and it does meet WP:GNG. But the way it is written coming across as a laundry list of decks that might have been competitive at one point quickly gets dated. If you strip it down to its essence, you end up with something that might better fit into a larger MTG strategy article. I would support some sort of merge. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, WP:GAMEGUIDE is merely one of many redirects to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal, which covers all manner of how-tos -- video games being just one example. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that; it's in the same general category, but the wording is a bit more of a low bar, making it a bit easier to misapply. I don't think this article (or many that get falsely flagged under WP:GAMEGUIDE) qualifies as a manual, guidebook, or textbook. - Sangrolu (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might take some effort to fine sources but there might be a possible article for "Deck types in tabletop/digital CCGs", as several of the deck types here also come into line with Hearthstone, for example. So an article that describes the general approaches these decks across all CCGs have (eg aggro decks generally being of easily-played, low value cards to constantly be on the offensive). But whether such sources would exist for that, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I haven't looked at every single source in the article, but the majority seem to be how-to guides. Just because a site that is reliable covers the topic of deck composition does not mean that they are establishing notability for the topic as a whole. Using the topic of video games, GameSpot and other such sites will have various gameplay guides. That's a reliable site, but that would not mean an article on a game's gameplay would have notability established due to that. That is explicit game guide material and nothing shows the potential to develop the article as a whole in such a way that such restructuring is possible. The idea that it somehow only applies to video games is silly. Games are games, guides are guides, and this is a game guide. It's basically an issue of WP:WEIGHT, and everything shows that Magic: The Gathering#Deck construction has a decent overview of the topic. TTN (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources out there. [1] in an entire independent book dedicated to this type of thing. [2] more broadly discusses gaming and includes these notions (from what I can tell) and certainly isn't a game guide. And while we aren't a game guide, it's fine to use game guides as a source. [3] is a fine example. And this article isn't a game guide. It doesn't tell you how to play a game, it discusses the terminology of the basic strategy of game. We have a whole category for baseball strategy [4]. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is terminology that is confined to the bounds of a specific game and not outside of it, it is a gameguide material, unless it can be demonstrated that the strategy aspects are important well outside the field (eg chess for example but its got centuries on Magic). This is why my above suggestion if this could be made more generalized across all CCGs and not just Magic, then there's a viable article here that's not gameguide material. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh. #1 to quote: "...But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series)" certainly we've got plenty of secondary sources discussing this in it's own right, it's a lot more notable than the example given. #2 as you've noted, this terminology has carried over to other games. Plenty of documentation on that too. Not currently a focus of the article, but it could be added. #3 We have plenty of articles on other things, such as sports, like this. Baseball is a prime example and we have lots of articles that discuss baseball terminology and strategy. You get consensus that those should be deleted, I'd start to buy your argument. Hobit (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hobit and per the multiple independent RS identified in the last AfD in 2013. If anything, MtG deck building just has even more RS coverage since then. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic of MTG deck types is really notable, there have got to be better sources than Wizards (primary source), and StarCity Games (questionable reliability).--Prisencolin (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think this debate would be very different if the "plenty of sources" mentioned above by Hobit were present in the article. As it stands, the entirety of the article is sourced to Wizards of the Coast (a primary source) and Star City Games, which is a retail outlet for Magic supplies and not a reliable source. Given that Magic has been around for 25 years I wouldn't be surprised if there were lots of secondary sources to support an article like this, but where are they? Hobit brings up this (possibly vanity press?) book and a book by David Sirlin that isn't actually about Magic or building Magic decks -- his specialty is arcade fighting games like Street Fighter. This doesn't suggest that the topic meets the bar of WP:GNG. Happy to revist my argument if more sources arise. A Train^talk 10:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, as always, the state of the article has nothing to do with the topic meeting WP:N. Secondly, people keep asking for "wider impact" so I cited a book largely not about MtG that discusses the tactics of MtG. Isn't that exactly what "wider impact" means? Finally, I'm really not seeing the problem with Star City. Yes, their business is reselling cards, mainly MtG cards. But if a used car dealer for race cars wrote articles about optimizing a car for racing, I don't see how that couldn't be used as a source for the cars in question. Starcity isn't a part of the owner of MtG and, I suspect, isn't something the MtG people particularly care for. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit:, to see the problem with Star City, have a look at the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources guideline. Stores and vendors are acceptable for use as sources only "in order to verify such things as titles and running times". It is expected that Wikipedia sources (same guideline) "should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I don't think that the content writers for Star City Games have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, though I'd love to see any evidence to the contrary.

Finally, I'm not talking about the current state of the article when I ask for more reliable sources -- what I'm getting at is that reliable sources for this topic don't seem to exist and I sincerely doubt that they do. One self-published memoir from a Magic player and a passing mention in David Sirlin's book won't cut it. You talk disparagingly above about baseball strategy but the fact is that you could build an Egyptian pyramid out of all the books that have been written about baseball strategy; we can't even begin to find one book about building Magic decks. A Train^talk 11:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Are you actually reading what i've posted? I cited a book that is solely about building Magic decks. [5] is another one. [6] looks to have both an overview of how to play and how to build decks (but I can't see much of it). Have you actually searched yourself? I'm guessing based on your statement "we can't even begin to find one book about building Magic decks." that perhaps you have not. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit:, I am absolutely, 100% reading what you're posting. Please return the courtesy and read what I'm posting. I addressed the Michael Flores memoir you posted earlier -- it's a vanity press book published by an apparently defunct Magic card vendor. You haven't actually responded to the meat of my argument: do any of these sources meet the bar of WP:RS?I've said below (and you haven't directly addressed this, btw) I think that Wizards of the Coast and Star City Games are not reliable sources, and at the moment the entire article is exclusively sourced to them. If you're finding Magic books in Google Books searches, that's great, but I think you need to prove that they meet the bar of WP:RS. Likewise, you're telling us that the David Sirlin book is a good source. Great. I would happily change my !vote if you can work the David Sirlin material and other reliable sources into the article. A Train^talk 21:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying things that are either wrong ("we can't even begin to find one book about building Magic decks, and that WotC isn't reliable) or show a lack of understanding of AfD (we should delete because the sources aren't in the article). (WotC isn't independent of the subject, but it is reliable, see WP:BIASED and just generally read WP:RS). I acknowledge that there are reasonable arguments that the topic may not met WP:GNG (though I think those arguments are mistaken, they are still reasonable). But it's hard to hold a discussion when you keep saying things that just aren't so or are irrelevant to the discussion. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion with you at this point as I don't think there is a productive way forward. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. For what it's worth, I feel that my understanding of AfD is sound and I don't feel as if you've addressed the meat of my argument, it just seems that you're picking at the edges and making unsupported claims as though they were self-evident -- for example, why is Wizards of the Coast a reliable source? Telling people to go read WP:RS isn't much of an argument. Anyway, if you're not interested in continuing the discussion I'll leave it there. A Train^talk 10:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

OK, I'm back I guess. Are you really claiming WotC is likely to publish things that are mistaken about Magic? It's certainly a primary source, and it's certainly not independent of the topic, but it is clearly reliable in this context. If you'd like, feel free to take it to WP:RSN and ask if you have doubts. And it's not "picking around the edges" when you claim there is no such book after we've just discussed one and a trivial search turns up others. And arguing that well sure, sources exist, but they aren't in the article and until they are I think it should be deleted shows a lack of understanding of WP:DEL and WP:DEL#7. Again, it's about the topic not the article (WP:TNT being a rare exception). So as I said, three issues with your arguments: a statement that no book likely exists even though we were just discussing one and a trivial search turns up others, a misunderstanding of what a reliable source is, and a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#7. Put together, it's hard to have a discussion when we can't agree on words, concepts, or even what we'd just discussed. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Sirlin is a well-known author in the area of game design, so if he did indeed wrote about this subject I guess I'll support a weak keep.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin:, Sirlin is indeed a well-known game designer, but his book mentions Magic:The Gathering ten times in passing and does not discuss the construction or employment of deck types in detail. A Train^talk 11:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page 52 has three paragraphs that are exactly about the topic of this article. And keep in mind, I just grabbed a few of the first 10 hits off a book search... Hobit (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched the Sirlin book myself. There are fewer than 15 instances of the word "magic" in the entire book and many of them do not refer to Magic The Gathering. A Train^talk 21:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be descriptive rather than a guide. 17:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - These deck archetypes are not exclusive to Magic, and have propagated through many deck building card games. There are reliable sources which discuss these deck variants, such as Daily Dot and PC Gamer discussing the merits of Aggro Decks in Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft. I'd consider this article to be similar to articles on chess openings or sports rules/techniques. - hahnchen 21:43, 11 September 2016 (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.