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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phyrexia[edit]

Phyrexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fictional location from a trading card game. Tagged as unsourced since 2008, failing WP:V and WP:N, and also fails WP:GAMEGUIDE as a completely in-universe description (i.e., written as though it were factual) of a game concept.  Sandstein  17:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination --Melaen (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If this article is to be deleted, shall we also delete the articles for other planes in Magic: The Gathering? Kamigawa, Rath (plane), Mercadia, Rabiah the Infinite, Ravnica (plane), and Shandalar? Yonskii (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That would require separate discussions.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that it would require separate discussions. Maybe separate for WP:Verifiability and WP:Gameguide, but definitely not for WP:Notability. Albeit, Phyrexia is arguable more notable than those other locations. But at the very least, other articles, such as Middle-Earth should be considered. Unless you can definitively prove from policy that such considerations do not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While deletion would indeed require separate discussions, merging or redirection would not. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and other fictional locations into something along the lines of List of locations in Magic: the Gathering. Lack of notability for an individual fictional element is insufficient grounds for deletion when an appropriate merge target exists or is articulable. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Google Books link above turns up a number of hits that appear to be non-vanity press books; whether they are RS or primary remains to be seen. Astonishingly enough, Google NEWS turns up several hits for the term in apparent RS coverage of Magic: The Gathering tournaments. Does not appear that BEFORE was followed by the nominator... Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unverifiable content should not be retained, whether in this or another article. Per WP:BURDEN, it is your responsibility to cite sources for unsourced content that you would like to keep, not mine.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please cite which content in the article is unverifiable. Have you personally tried to source it and failed? Note that primary sources are perfectly adequate for meeting WP:V. Note that WP:BURDEN only applies to specific article content--WP:BEFORE applies to deletion discussions, and governs this conversation. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of it. WP:V defines "verifiability", in its first sentence, as "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Because there are no references in the article, readers cannot make this check and the content is therefore unverifiable until it is sourced. WP:BURDEN is part of a core policy and applies to all discussions about whether or not to retain article content for lack of sources. I have performed the usual Google searches, but have not immediately found reliable third-party sources that could make this subject and this particular content verifiable and notable. If you find any, please feel free to cite them in the article.  Sandstein  20:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you ever looked at WP:PRIMARY? Your above comment seems to betray a profound lack of understanding of the actual policy regarding usage of primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am familiar with that section of policy, which begins: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", and continues: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." This is also reflected in WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This matches what I've said above: No secondary sources means no article. In view of this, I am not entirely certain that it is my position that reflects a less than optimal understanding of core policy.  Sandstein  20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Shall I catalogue the deficiencies? 1) Fictional elements can almost always be merged, rather than deleted. The entire nomination ignores that WP:ATDpreferred outcome. 1a) or redirected, for that matter. 2) Unverifiable asserts that the statements cannot be sourced anywhere. Phyrexia is one game setting for a product published by Hasbro; there's no question that it exists as a fictional element based on the published primary sources. Independence from primary sources is an element of notability, not verifiability. 3) You appear to have overlooked the various reliable sources I've documented above. Just because most of them don't deal extensively enough with the topic to establish notability doesn't mean they are inapplicable as verification. Mind you, I'm not arguing that the article be kept as a separate topic, but you're arguing for deletion well beyond what is actually supportable by policy. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Existence is not the same as verifiability. "Unverifiable" asserts that readers cannot "check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (as per the definition in WP:V given above) i.e., that it is unsourced. That's why the policy says that challenged material "must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material" and not "... must be supported by a source that exists somewhere". In other words, verifiability does not assert, as you believe, that "the statements cannot be sourced anywhere", as that would require proving a negative, which is rarely possible. The verifiability requirement exists for the benefit of readers, not editors, and therefore it requires that the sources be actually cited in the article, not that they theoretically exist somewhere.

                  In this case, the sources (if there are any) are not cited in the article, hence the content is unverifiable (for readers!) until somebody adds the actual reliable sources, not merely vague references to WP:GHITS, to the actual article. Until this happens, the content is unsuitable for retention whether as a separate article or as part of another article. To the extent the content is made verifiable by adding reliable sources, even primary ones, it could be merged. But the WP:BURDEN to do the source-adding rests on those who wish to retain the content.  Sandstein  22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                  • Readers can (by following links, using Google, Internet catalogs, etc.) ascertain that Phyrexia is in fact a published fictional element. this is a good example. Hasbro is, per WP:SELFPUB, a perfectly fine reliable source for its own products despite that page being self-published. Even if we interpret V per your semantics, the content is still plenty verifiable. The fact that the article lacks direct links to sources, rather, means that the article isn't currently verified--in that it doesn't help the reader find the appropriate RS--but not that it is not verifiable. You arguing that sourcing doesn't exist to meet WP:V is both wrong and pointless: the real issue isn't V, which can be done at any point using links provided just like I did, but rather its standalone notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I agree that the lack of notability precludes the continued existence of a separate article. I also agree that there are probably primary sources out there somewhere that could be used for verification of at least the basics of this fictional concept (but not necessarily all of the current text). Where we disagree is whether the current material should be merged in its currently unsourced (but potentially sourceable) form. I believe it should not, because the plain wording of WP:V, cited above, says that contested material must be removed unless it is inline-sourced. By AfDing the article, I am contesting the entire material. It may therefore not be retained, not even via a merger, except to the extent it is first inline-sourced.  Sandstein  06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Which would be fine, except that I haven't yet seen you contest anything. Simply noting that "this is unsourced and needs to be improved" is not contesting a statement. The alternative would be that any sentence, in any article, which doesn't have specific inline citation counts as "challenged or likely to be challenged" and must be removed. In fact, statements exist most articles, and that's perfectly fine until someone else says "that's wrong" (not "that's unsourced"). You're narrowly reading policies in a way that if applied would lead to unreasonable results inconsistent with community consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite the little of value to save from this article, I am still left a little uneasy voting delete. Verifiability is easily met, and I have seen many articles survive with notability sources worse than a wired blog and an online magazine article, before mentioning the book references. There appears to be a release of something called new Phyrexia in June and with over 1.5 million google hits, I certainly don't have the time to check all the sources. While I don't think that WP:GAMEGUIDE strictly applies to boardgames the way that it has recently been applied, clearly the current article has WP:INUNIVERSE problems so should be deleted.Tetron76 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In universe problems can be fixed via editing--deletion is rarely the way forward if notability requirements are met. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree but I don't think that notability is currently met for its own article, and while it may be true that inuniverse can be fixed via editing I don't believe any of the current article would remain.Tetron76 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment while this may or may not be above WP:N (I've not looked at the sources yet), there exist an obvious merge target Plane_(Magic:_The_Gathering)#Phyrexia, and so at the least this should be a merge and redirect. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that the content is entirely unsourced for years now, failing WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Moving it elsewhere does not remedy that.  Sandstein  19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you arguing that we should delete all articles which have lacked sources for years? Hobit (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If they are brought to AfD, and nobody can or cares to find appropriate sources during the AfD, yes. After all, verifiability is a core policy, and we do not indefinitely keep content that does not comply with core policy. And articles can be userfied and restored if sources are later found.  Sandstein  21:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is hard, but WP:V is pretty darn easy. Other than the primary sources we have sites like [1] which focus heavily on topics like this. Is that site reliable? In it's area it appears to be the single most reliable source of information there is. And no, I'd no idea such a thing existed, I stopped playing Magic more than 15 years ago. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V may be easy, but it requires that the sources be actually added to the article. That website looks to be self-published and thus presumably unreliable.  Sandstein  06:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's likely to get things wrong in it's own little domain? SPSes are often problematic from a WP:N viewpoint, but in their own areas they are sources of highly reliable information. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when people read policies through the lens of language nuances rather than common sense. A manufacturer's catalog or product specification is generally the best and most reliable source of basic info about a product: plenty fine for V, inapplicable for N, and not reliably NPOV. Using sources appropriately depends on knowing which sources can be trusted to authenticate which statements. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't want unsourced material to be taken from one article and stuck in another. We want sourced content. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and since when does a merge outcome require that unsourced content be "stuck" in a target article? If you have a problem with the fact that the article can be sourced but currently isn't, that's a different matter. That would be a "redirect until someone sources it" outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated in the nomination, the article fails verifiability and notability. It also is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context. With no references independent of the subject from third-party sources to presume notability, there is no basis to keep the article. I do not believe that a merge is an acceptable option because the text in the article is a detailed plot-only description of a fictional work and Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. I also do not believe that the topic Phyrexia is needed to understand the card game Magic: The Gathering, so the content of the article can be perfectly omitted. A simple mention in a list (as it is right now in Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Artificial Planes) is more than enough. In my opinion, all text in the nominated article is material more in line with a game guide than Wikipedia. While it may have several Google hits, existence is not the same as notability. Jfgslo (talk) 02:33, 24 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.