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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering people[edit]

This article is merely a collection of information and thus violates WP:NOT. It also lacks sources to justify it's notability outside the realm of Magic:The Gathering. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a whole nest of fancruft and vanity. Leibniz 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - listcruft, fancruft and vanity. MER-C 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a collection of trivia. If these points are interesting and important enough, they could be discussed in Magic:The Gathering. Mangojuice^talk 13:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I was the one who originally off-loaded the Pro Tour part of the list into this article from the main Magic: The Gathering article, they are nowhere near interesting and important enough to go in the main article, which is already a bit over-long. If this article is deleted, there is no place to merge to (not that that's a bad thing). SnowFire 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article itself could be merged in the main MTG article, but that article itself has a request not to add new content due to length, so keeping it seperate may be best for now. Content could use some work though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Information useful to noone. --InShaneee 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as clearly there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people playing in sanctioned tournaments, which is only a small percentage of the Magic-playing population, of which it is a given there are people who are important enough to be notable and therefore need articles. Organizing this information is also important. FrozenPurpleCube 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a bit of a catch-all isnt' it? I don't see the purpose of this article. Creators and Support Staff should be listed in the main MtG article. NetReps don't need to be mentioned (none of them meet WP:BIO anyway)... same with the Fans. Pro Tour memebers would be better displayed in a Category or List of MtG Pro Tournament Players.--Isotope23 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Netreps section can probably be deleted, but if you agree about the rest of the content being keepable, then I ask you consider whether enlarging that article any further is desirable. FrozenPurpleCube 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I didn't say the rest was necessarily Keepable, though I think a list of Tournament Players could be kept, but that should be a category or List of Magic: The Gathering Tournament Players with the caveat that they must all meet WP:BIO to be listed there. The rest of the people in the current article don't meet WP:BIO as far as I can tell, so I don't see the purpose of a catch-all article with various lists of people with differing connections to M:TG, any of whom don't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is Category:Magic: The Gathering players already, but I think that's too specific, since there are people such as creators, writers and artists who might warrant mention as magic related, but not for playing, especially not in tournaments, yet it might be good to have a category for people involved with the game. FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, creators, writers, and artists should be mentioned in the main M:TG article (if they don't meet WP:BIO, or in a category if they meet WP:BIO (as is done with Category:Dungeons & Dragons authors)... at the very least they should be at a List of Magic: The Gathering Creative Staff.--Isotope23 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only because this should be a category. -- Grev 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Peta 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per bad-faith nom (see discussion at Jon Finkel). The Netreps and fans sections could be cut out, but otherwise I think this could be a worthwhile list. Professionals and game designers seems an acceptable and maintainable inclusion criteria. Irongargoyle 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crying out to be a category rather than an article. Not an encyclopedic list. MLA 10:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LIST - These people aren't notable outside of magic is a pretty weak argument - olympic athlete aren't usually notable outside the olympics, et cetera - they all pass WP:BIO in letter and spirit. WilyD 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the biggest problem though is that this is a muddled amalgam of people with varying relations to the game. The criteria for inclusion is vague or non-existant. Even the parts that may merit inclusion should be broken out into separate lists and categories where the criteria for inclusion is solidly defined.--Isotope23 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you prefer I said keep per WP:SUMMARY ? WilyD 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, you can cite any guidelines you choose Wily... I simply disagree with keeping this. Anything salvagable should be moved to a more logical place (per my comments above) and this namespace should be deleted. Besides, I don't see how WP:SUMMARY even applies here...--Isotope23 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The notable ones have their own articles, the rest are sub-trivial. I used to play Magic a bit in school, and I doubt that myself or anyone I played with knew or cared what the names of the "netreps" were either then or now. The creators have their own articles and are mentioned in the main article, while the players (most of whom I'm not convinced are encyclopedic, but that's another debate) have a category Category:Magic: The Gathering players. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is this nomination a WP:POINT - and if so, what is the point itself?? --LiverpoolCommander 14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Yu-Gi-Oh card player got deleted. WilyD 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with category, although I think this list is as notable, if not more so, than many others, like List of Norwegian photographers, List of dance style categories, List of German-language philosophers, and List of drugs known to cause paranoia. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list with fantasy-card-game online "netreps" comparable to a list with Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Karl Marx??? Hmm. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wryspy 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, condider renaming to List of notable Magic: The Gathering players or similar.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, any article or list that ends in the word "people" just seems awkward. Irongargoyle 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As one of the NetReps, I find it mildly amusing that some Wiki guardians - who have no concept of who I may be, nor what contributions I might make - find those things to be trivial. I'm left with a simple conclusion - delete, since it makes you happy. Certainly, I don't care if Wikipedia immortalizes me or my peers. SleazyOtto 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The reasoning used here by SleazyOtto does not conform to anything outlined in any policies that WP has on article {in,ex}clusion. Also (only slightly related) see semi-precedent of Angela Beesley's multiple AfD's, where no consensus was reached and it was (it seems) generally felt that User:Angela's wishes to be removed do not trump WP:BIO. Storkk 15:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and create a category. In my opinion, a list would smell crufty. --Storkk 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create a category - the ebcyclopaedic content can easilly be incorporated into the main article. BlueValour 01:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WilyD writes: "These people aren't notable outside of magic is a pretty weak argument - olympic athlete aren't usually notable outside the olympics". Olympic athletes are written about in NUMEROUS VERIFIABLE sources, in media outside of themselves, magi-thletes are not. Guyanakoolaid 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We seem to have gone to a standard where any olympic athlete is considered notable for purposes of inclusion. I'm not saying there is a problem with this; but particularly with the minor athletes who don't place in the olympics--but do participate--I bet you would be hard pressed to find "numerous verifiable sources" (at least those which are easy to find). Certainly fewer reliable sources exist for them than the major Magic: The Gathering players listed on this page. Irongargoyle 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not just any olympic athlete rates for inclusion. The subject has to perform at the "highest level." The reason for deletion or inclusion of this list is not whether or not the list members are notable, it's whether or not the list members meet the exclusion critera of WP:NOT. However, the list also fails to state is reason for being a list and fails several points of WP:LIST. Many delete nominators are correct: this should be a category. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notable entries already have articles, this list should be a category. -- Norvy (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2006 (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.