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 keep. Noting that the nomination and other arguments for deletion have been withdrawn or changed to neutral. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This fails WP:GNG and is a straightforward violation of WP:NOT (a guide). It's not Wikipedia's place to provide rules for games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is literally nothing but a how to guide, and thus is a blatant failure of WP:NOT. An actual overview of the general rules of the game is already included in extensive, but much more succinct and better written, detail at the main Magic: The Gathering article under gameplay. There is nothing really salvageable here that should be merged over, nor am I seeing any reason why there needs to be a WP:SPLIT from the main article. Its probably worth it to also take a look at List of Magic: The Gathering keywords, which is much like this article, only actually worse somehow. Rorshacma (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have numerous similar articles about the rules for other major games and sports and so such articles are clearly acceptable. The nomination is absurdly false claiming this one fails WP:GNG because there are numerous books dedicated to this game and they explicitly cover the rules too. The game is played professionally and so the detailed intricacies and changes naturally attract coverage too. Moreover, as this topic has been nominated repeatedly before but is still here, this is an obvious case of WP:NOTAGAIN contrary to WP:DELAFD: " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." See also policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons I specified last nomination. AFD is not cleanup. The article as it stands may not currently have all the features that Rules of Chess has, but there is no reason it couldn't have all those features. The rules are notable in and of themselves because they have a history of changes, and have had commentary been written about them extensively. Just because the article doesn't currently reflect this is no reason to delete it. (summoned by someone thanking me for my previous keep vote) Fieari (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have a lot more faith in that argument if it weren't for the fact that the same argument was made to keep five years ago, and the suggested article improvement never happened. WP:NOT is a policy, and this article failed that policy five years ago, and fails that policy today. Is the consensus really that Wikipedia policies don't matter, and that content that blatantly goes against it should just be kept indefinitely because someday it might be rewritten? And, as I mentioned above, a version of an overview of the rules of the game that doesn't violate policy already exists at Magic: The Gathering#Gameplay, so its not like its being argued that the rules of Magic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia. It should just be covered in a way that falls in line with our policies, which this article, as a literal how to does not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Time spent without being cleaned up is not an argument. Again, AfD is not Cleanup. The solution to a bad article that meets notability criteria is not to nuke it from orbit. A subject is either notable or not. This is notable, regardless of its current quality. Is it YOUR suggestion that every single stub quality article on wikipedia be deleted if no one improves it in 5 years? That's not how this works. The policies you cite are not deletion criteria, they are improvement criteria. Fieari (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A stub article can remain a stub and still conform to Wikipedia policy. However, that has no bearing on this AFD as WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for this particular article. You say the policy I cite is not deletion criteria, but criteria #13 of WP:DELREASON states that one criteria for deletion is if an article that falls contrary to the established policy, then there is grounds for deletion. In this case, the entirety of this article falls contrary to WP:NOT. Additionally, notability of a topic alone is not automatically grounds for an independent article, per WP:NOPAGE. In this case, we have a very extensive section on the notable elements of the rules of this game at Magic: The Gathering#Gameplay already. What actual policy based reason is there that would justify a WP:SPLIT into a how to guide? Rorshacma (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable - why? You haven't provided an argument to back up your assertion of WP:ITSNOTABLE. And yes, articles beyond hope can be nuked from orbit (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over). Given this article is a pure rules summary with nothing showing the topic of MtG rules has received any wider attention, there is nothing to salvage here. And the rules are already much better covered on up to date fan wikis like https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page so there is no information loss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As someone who is quite familiar with MtG, both as a fan and as a scholar who writes about games, I'll also point out that despite MtG being very popular, there is next to no academic research about it, and the little that is is about the community, not the rules. The game is notable enough, but we don't need a 'how-to' summary of its rules that has zero about their reception or significance outside the game itself (and no sources to address this have bene presented here). This is different from chess or go, whose rules have been subject to a zillion of more academic treatments. MtG is still not there. A brief summary of the rules can be included in the main MtG article, but any comparison to chess and such is pretty much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS. I am also seeing a worse attitude of WP:ITSNOTABLE. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, being a fan of MtG and so on, but folks, if you want this kept, please try to do better with your arguments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When an encyclopedia covers a game, the rules are a central aspect of it and an essential part of understanding the nature of the game. A valid discussion can be had about whether the rules should be in a separate article or not, but the rules page is long, so summary style is probably appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most other WP pages that cover game rules use third-party sourcing (with some first-party) to show the relative notability/importance of the rules. This page does not. Whether that is possible with MTG's rules to this level of detail throughout, I don't know. --Masem (t) 20:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the rules are a key part of the game and can be covered in an encyclopedic manner.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The sourcing is bad. Like really bad. The writing isn't great. But the argument that coverage of rules happens all the time here is valid. So the question remains: are their solid, reliable and independent sources that can be used here? If not, this needs to go. A quick search via Google Books turns up stuff from WotC and self-published stuff. Is there anything else out there? If there is, then the only argument for deletion is WP:TNT, and I think the article isn't *that* bad. But if there isn't, we have a problem. I'm not a huge fan of WP:THREE but I think it is useful here... Anyone? Hobit (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking about this, I note that the main Magic: the Gathering article is a Good Article and does not even have a section called rules, but has one called gameplay. While that GA review was in 2009, the editor who I think was the main driver of GAing this was User:OdinFK, who perhaps could offer some advice on thoughts on whether they think this topic is rescuable, or mergeable (to the main MtG article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. Fails WP:NOT (game guide) and is mostly unsourced (WP:V). Sandstein 10:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral after improved sourcing. Sandstein 10:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My perspective on Magic is mostly from within the community, so I wouldn't necessarily know if there are good independent sources. I'm also not really a WP guidelines buff, so I'm not sure of much help I can be. However, I must admit that I don't really see a reason to have a MTG rules article in its current style in the Wikipedia. A condensed explanation of gameplay is very important and should be in the main article. As far as I'm concerned the main MTG article does a good job of explaining the basic concepts. What goes far beyond that clearly seems to violate WP:NOT. If some editors want to salvage this article, then I think it would make sense to zone in more on other things than the game rules themselves. For example an outline of the tournament rules might be sensible. There should be reliable outside sources talking about p.e. the World Championship and while doing that also try to outline how the competition works. Also the history of the rules and how these rules changes were received by the community might be topics that you can find reliable 3rd party sources for. There must be dozens of articles that detailed how Magic was surely going to die when combat damage stopped using the stack. Similar articles would have been written after the M10 rules were announced. OdinFK (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the WikiProject Magic: The Gathering talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Per the arguments made above. Rules of a vastly popular games become notable in themselves, and there is literature that demonstrates that. If it makes sense to have an article on the Rules of chess (and that one being rated as a Good Article no less!) then there is space for rules of other games to also be considered for notability. On the other hand, I do agree that the article needs improvement. Taking a page from the chess article, the rules of MTG article would benefit from also having a history section. This becomes even more needed in the MTG article because the rules are ever evolving. Further, covering how the rules get decided and changed also mertis coverage. Other section of the chess article include conduct, equipment, and variations. Yes, the article has plenty of room for improvement, but the topic is in itself notable. The wiki community should constructively build upon what already exists, instead of tearing it down. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Using the aforementioned Rules of Chess as a model, I started to reorganize and trim the article. I was able to find a lot of sources explaining basic gameplay mechanics so while I think this article needs a lot of work and additional sources, it is also a salvageable article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While AfD shouldn't be cleanup, the point was raised that cleanup wasn't done after the last AfD. I've started to edit the article, however, the two big areas that still need trimming & sources are the Gameplay and Timing sections. I'm fairly confident that I'll be able to find more sources for the Terminology section but since I don't play this game, some help editing the other sections would be great. Additionally, there's this really useful image (File:Carta Magic Italiano.JPG) explaining components of a Magic card - however, it is in Italian. Does anyone have photoshop ability to translate this into English? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Speaking of other useful images from the Wiki Commons that need translating, here's one (File:Magicarea.png) that shows the various gameplay zones. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, your improvements are very helpful. Before I withdraw my nom, can you point out at least two reliable, independent sources that cover MtG rules in a way that meets SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments above, and per WP:HEY[1]. BOZ (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article's sourcing has been massively improved. Props to Sariel Xilo on the cleanup. Mlb96 (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please, don't delete it 🥺 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'd just like to point out that this is the fourth nomination of this article, for this very reason. The article has only improved since then, and survived all three AfD discussion with two "Keep" results and a "No consensus to delete" result in 2008. I'll copy this from the closure of the most recent AfD, in 2016: policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play. It seems there's pretty broad consensus that merely being a rule guide (to which MtG is not nearly unique) is not grounds for deletion. MtG is highly notable, and has a complex ruleset—I don't see how it harms the encyclopedia to keep this article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is covered by WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Also, MtG rules are probably subject to copyright so " a mere reproduction of game rules" is not just something that violates GNG and NOTAGUIDE, it also likely violates COPYVIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I'm still not thrilled that there don't appear to be really strong independent, reliable, sources that cover the entire topic in depth, but the sources in the article now make it clear there are tons of independent, reliable, sources that cover parts of the topic in depth and it can (and is) written without a ton of reliance on non-independent sources (the rules themselves). Huge shoutout to Sariel Xilo on meeting WP:HEY! Hobit (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just dropped an outline over on the article's talk page about areas that still need the most work. What I need help with is reducing some sections to what is actually important & getting rid of stuff that is too nitty gritty. Also, some sections still need secondary sources. I think the area that is going to be the most difficult to source is actually the new History section. I found primary sources on the big rules changes (1994 revised edition, 1995 fourth edition, 1997 fifth edition, 1999 Classic Sixth Edition, Magic 2010 core set) but no secondary sources. Given the age of these updates, coverage might have been offline (game magazines, etc) so this would take some research by another editor. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. The improvements to the article by User:Sariel Xilo, coupled with Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules#AfD_Cleanup_2021, seem to be sufficient to prove this can be salvaged, and in fact has been sufficiently for now - before, it was just a borderline copyvio & game guide/rule dump, now this is shaping much better into what an encyclopedic article should be. I still think we could discuss summarizing this better and merging it to the main article, but it's not a priority. Ping User:Rorshacma and User:Sandstein who also voted for deletion, as my withdrawal cannot be executed if there are any delete votes outstanding. Perhaps you'd be inclined to change your vote as well after reviewing the rewrittena article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I concur, and have stricken my previous recommendation. Given the way the discussion was headed at the end of the initial week, I had actually not expected it to be relisted, so thank you User:Piotrus for the heads up on this. I agree that there is still room for discussion on whether a separate page is needed or if it can be covered on the main article on the game, but my concerns of WP:NOT for this article have been addressed with another excellent job by User:Sariel Xilo. Rorshacma (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2021 (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.