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. Substantially uncontested. Sandstein 18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

There are no independent reliable sources that discuss this topic. The only sources are primary sources that are directly related to the sale of the products mentioned. Unlike Tempo (chess), which while poorly inline sourced, does have reliable sources about the concept, a search of google books and news doesn't show it as a concept in even the few articles about individual notable championship games or the like. The theorists cited are also not independent of the games themselves which make this more questionable. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would offer the possibility that there's a couple options here: first, tempo is not strictly limited to Magic but used for many other CCGs (including Hearthstone), but finding strong sourcing for this term is weak. But still, this might suggest broading the topic. I also noted that Tempo (bridge) exists, which is related to the concept (gaining advantages faster than the opponents), so maybe something there, but again, here I can't easily connect how the origin of "tempo" in Magic or other CCG connects to the bridge or chess term. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Tempo_(disambiguation)#Games_and_fiction for a full list. If you think there's something there, I'm fine with draftifying this for further work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting its own notable article apart from the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 May 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.