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. Arguments to keep are not based in policy, article has already been transwikied and as such the history has already been preserved. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Magic: the Gathering Standard (Type II)[edit]

Timeline of Magic: the Gathering Standard (Type II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Mass of poorly-sourced fancruft (despite the large number of references, every single source is primary). This sort of thing is much better suited to fan wikis than general-interest wikis like Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems to be mostly maintained by a single individual, who made a Reddit post in response to this deletion notice, arguing in favor of keeping it. Their argument seems to just boil down to "I worked hard on it, so keep it because I want to", which is not actually addressing the issues that the article presents. Additionally, they have copy+pasted the text of the article over to the MTG Wiki on FANDOM, and so there is no longer any need to have it here. --172.88.48.178 (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair if I thought the article I spent a lot of time on would get deleted then I would keep a backup some where too and why not put it on another wiki since it seems likely to me this will get deleted. Maxinfet (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Both the argument used by that single individual to keep it (which is a bad one) and it's existence elsewhere are irrelevant to the decision of whether to keep it. The article should be judged on it's quality and relevancy, not on the quality of the arguments used by a single person, even if that's the person who wrote it. As for a duplicate existing on another Wiki, Wikipedia's aim isn't to document only what doesn't exist elsewhere.

  But note that this comment I'm writing isn't an argument to keep. I'm abstaining from that as my familiarity with Wikipedia's policy isn't good enough. I'm simply arguing that the reasons in the comment I'm replying to aren't good. Davide (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has fan implications doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is always the first stop for people interested in stuff. Don't take that away from them 71.218.105.52 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely agree. This is the equivalent of having a wikipedia page giving a detail explanation of all pokemons. We have fandom wikis for a reason. This guy has no offered a reason to keep it other than being mad because someone wants to delete a thing he willingly invested hours in. Nobody forced him to do it so that's not a valid reason. My vote is for an inmediate deletion 131.0.198.193 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm an admin over on the relevant fan wiki, where yes, the primary author has begun the process of porting their work. I expect that this discussion will pass, although you may see some community members coming over from Reddit to say their piece. I've worked to describe WP's process and policies to the Reddit community, but if someone more acclimated to this culture wants to contribute to the thread, it might be enlightening.

My only quibble, @Pppery, is that it would be more neutral and welcoming to choose a word less loaded than "cruft" to describe an editor's work. Whether that work belongs on Wikipedia or not, and regardless of the quality of their output, it costs us very little to respect their effort. Jrcollins (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is the standard term for this, not intended as an insult. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does this not follow the precedence for other sports on this site? It seems that other sports list their rules changes and history as well as keep a general rules page then more specific rules pages. Here are some examples of baseball rules pages, it looks to me like they keep some generic history and then there are more specific pages which would be in line with keeping a Magic the Gathering general history then the history of the first tournament format called Standard/Type II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_rules_of_Major_League_Baseball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unwritten_rules_of_baseball

I don't know a lot about baseball but there were a lot more I could have linked to and I would imagine other sports are the same. I understand Magic the Gathering is missing the pedigree that baseball has but where is the line drawn; how many years old does Magic need to be before we are allowed to keep our history here of an individual format? Maxinfet (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the second of those articles does not contain such a list, whereas the third one is based on significantly higher-quality sources than this timeline is. The first of those articles is not at all comparable; it's about a specific rule in Tort Law, which as far as I can tell has no relation whatsoever to Magic: The Gathering cards. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason they could not have compiled a list of rules changes for baseball like the person maintaining this article has, I would argue that for Magics history of the Standard format this was the ideal way to present the information.

I was not trying to make a case that the articles were exactly the same in their presentation and format or even their content. I was trying to point out that sports the same structure of having a document about their rules then get more specifically into their rules of leagues or even into the laws that back their leagues since the US has a interesting relationship with their baseball league and the legal system. Sorry about my bad communication and admittedly my examples were not great.

Let me try to explain myself better and I appreciate your patients given that I imagine a lot of people came from reddit like I did and are probably giving non-constructive criticism. I was trying to liken MTG rules and a page about Standard/Type II history to how we have Baseball wiki pages on Baseball overall and then how we have a article on Major League Baseball which gets into a more specific league. I should have chosen my sources better, what I was trying to show with those 3 sources if just how deep it drills down past the two levels Magic the Gather has of Magic: The Gathering and Timeline of Magic: the Gathering Standard (Type II). Sorry for the bad communication there and I do appreciate you taking the time to read my post also I am new to moderation on the platform so I really appreciate the link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that answers my implied question about precedent. I should also mention this is not me trying to convince you with a more clear version of my argument since the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems pretty clear, I just wanted to clarify my argument even if it was not correct. Maxinfet (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to extend your baseball analogy to magic, you're looking for Magic: The Gathering rules, which has survived several deletion discussions and I recently rewrote to be based almost entirely on secondary sources, or Magic: The Gathering formats. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw the Magic: The Gathering rules when writing my initial post and I agree it makes more sense to use that. Also I edited my post and just noticed your response but just wanted to clarify that my response was not trying to argue for keep any more I was just trying to clarify my argument even though the link you gave me for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shows that the argument isn't sound. Just curious could some of the information in this page be moved to Magic: The Gathering formats and is their a good guideline page that you would suggest for that? I am not thinking about the entire chart but there are some interesting points in the list that if they are not in the Magic: The Gathering formats would be good to preserve, for example like the rules changes to companions just because of how rare an errata like that is. Maxinfet (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The companion mechanic is already discussed at Magic: The Gathering formats#Vintage. One could also justify adding it to List of Magic: The Gathering keywords, where it's currently missing entirely, and discussing the rules change there (although I think List of Magic: The Gathering keywords should also be deleted, and the only reason I haven't AfD-ed it is that it survived several deletion discussions in the past). But you should rely on secondary sources discussing the mechanic (of which there are plenty, such as this) not the banlists themselves to make that point, so there's nothing really to move.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the reasons given for deletion is this articles reliance on primary sources, which even a cursory reading of WP:PRIMARY shows is ridiculous — the guideline exists to discourage the *novel interpretation* of primary sources, which plainly does not apply to an article that consists only of a timeline of factual events. The bare URLs complaint is easily addressed; I'm happy to do it myself in the event that the page is kept. And the "excessive intricate detail" complaint is pretty silly in the face of plenty of other Wikipedia content; humorously, a delete voter above said this would be like keeping a page of detailed explanations of Pokémon, which is content that absolutely already exists — note that in addition to this enormous table, every single one of the 905 listed Pokémon is linked to a page covering its generation, with, indeed, a significantly more detailed explanation of what it does than anything on this page. Personman (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and you're missing the clause Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Can we please have more substantive arguments and less responses to off-wiki canvassing? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki as too detailed and too primary-source heavy for Wikipedia. (Canvassing disclaimer: saw the Reddit post asking people to come here and vote keep.) That said, there is information here that is Wikipedia-worthy that can and should be moved to other articles on Wikipedia if User:Phlounder is up for helping out the MTG Wikiproject. For example, all of the information on bans is often relevant to bring up elsewhere and has valid secondary coverage. The Kaladesh and Throne of Eldraine articles could certainly use more content discussing the large number of banned cards from those sets, when they happened, the fan reaction to the bans, and so on. This might be a more productive use of the sources gathered by the OP than this kind of chart? SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am the primary author of this page. I concede defeat, I have moved the page to mtgwiki, a fan wiki. I will not be updating it here anymore, so you may as well delete it. There are arguments for and against keeping it on Wikipedia that both make sense to me, but I'm not interested in the effort of defending it at this point. As a casual Wikipedia user, I was not fully versed in all of Wikipedia's policies and standards, and indeed, as this page got longer and longer I struggled to keep up with Wikipedia's formatting and documentation requirements. However, please note that in the zeal to make Wikipedia a place with more exacting standards of what belongs and what doesn't - you are creating a knowledgebase defined by gatekeepery diehards and excluding many who might help keep the site alive in the future. I will never donate to Wikipedia ever again. The lesson I have learned is that small businesses and local artists are insufficiently notable and timelines of product releases lack correct sources. My vision of Wikipedia is more inclusive but people like to gatekeep - so I'm out. Enjoy your exclusive community. I don't even know how to signoff correctly, maybe this will suffice: --* Phlounder * 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people who are "gatekeeping" are volunteers and thus not the same as the people who get the donations, so this threat isn't as effective as you think it is. Per my comment above, there is *plenty* of work to be done on MTG articles on Wikipedia that won't attract any deletion discussions at all. You are still welcome to contribute - despite your statements, we are a pretty welcoming and inclusive community, and you just had the bad luck that your major contribution fit better in fan wikis than here. We aren't being "exclusive" because we hate you personally or something - in fact, it's an impressive piece of work that is a good sign you could be a solid Wikipedia editor, just that doesn't change that it is content better suited for fan wikis than Wikipedia. If you ever change your mind and want to contribute to Wikipedia in a way that won't attract a deletion discussion, you'll find that the community you perceive as exclusive is actually pretty chill and would be happy to help you out - just ask before you start on such a big project. SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I would rather that folks be WP:BOLD. I don't think Phlounder erred in starting this page; we simply face the tragedy that they worked on it for five years before anyone else thought to question its inclusion. For three years, it was linked in the game's navbox template, on hundreds of pages, without complaint. I'm not arguing for keeping it. I'm trying to suggest that there were more respectful ways of opening this discussion. Jrcollins (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I might be a huge fan of Magic (hell, I named myself after a character in the game), but this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really do respect the effort that goes into making and maintaining a page like this, and I understand that when you put a lot of work into something, it can be heartbreaking to have it nominated for not meeting inclusion criteria. This isn't a judgement of the content! Wikipedia's goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to have all the knowledge under the sun. These criteria are way to understand what fits into that goal—what types of articles belong on Wikipedia, as opposed to another wiki project. Indiscriminate lists and directories of information that don't otherwise have clear encyclopedic value on their own are among the things that have been determined to not fit best here. This isn't because we hate them, and it doesn't matter if people find them useful.

As for inclusivity, this isn't about any editor. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but that is what editing is: contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold, add pages, write content, but understand that you don't own it. This isn't a site that hosts a bunch of individual editor's articles, it's something more than that—an encyclopedia that is ultimately built by all of us. Wikipedia's policies are designed to keep us on the same page about what this site is. They are built by editors through consensus, just like everything else here.

A note to closing admins: I have used pipe links to relevant policies here, instead of directly citing them by short names. I did this to keep the language as clear as possible for editors less familiar with the policy side of Wikipedia, and I'm sorry if this makes it harder to parse. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:24, 6 November 2022 (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.