Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhinged

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unhinged was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 09:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know (and someone should correct me if I'm wrong), no Magic: The Gathering set has ever been made into an article until now, with this one, which I now list as on WP:VFD so that we can determine if MTG sets are encyclopedic.

I am going to argue here that they are not: that making them encyclopedic would then require an article to be made for every single set that comes out; and that they are not notable in themselves (there is no information about them that could not go into the Magic: The Gathering or Magic: The Gathering sets articles).

—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:01, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete DCEdwards1966 02:17, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep--there's plenty of information for each M:TG set to have its own page, and I believe them to be encyclopedic. There's certainly a lot of information available; in addition, the article can discuss both in-game features (plot, revelations about the setting, etc) and out-of-game info (release date, changes made to the rules, so on). Clearly encyclopedic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:53, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A phenomenon. Dr Zen 04:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Magic sets should have their own sections.
  • Keep. We should have articles for all the other magic sets but no one has gone out and written them yet. Plus, the Unhinged is the second ever joke set ever released by wizards, which makes it somewhat special. Ambush Commander 04:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: An epiphenomenon. We should not become a site that does features on individual merchandise. The next logical step after a Magic series is a ruling that every single US baseball card get a separate article, with sale values, resale values, rookie, 1st year, 2nd year, etc. for every single baseball player ever. If the sets are singular, then they should be discussed in the general Magic article. If that article is so long as to be impossible to read anymore, then the prose and detail needs to be adjusted. Simply put, breaking out every single set of cards takes us a long way off from an encyclopedia and a great deal closer to a fansite or collector's site. Geogre 04:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I follow you in "if the sets are singular, they should be discussed in the general article". But you lose me at "If that article is so long as to be impossible to read anymore, then the prose and detail needs to be adjusted." How does this information do anything but help Wikipedia? I fail to see why, if a subject merits a mention, we shouldn't have a detailed and well-documented discussion of it--and if that means a separate article, so be it? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:55, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • My point was that I don't think that an article per set is warranted. A Sets of article would be ok. If there are so many sets that the Sets of article is too long (and I regard "too long" as an issue of organization and not 32 kb), then I would rather see less detail on the individual sets than moving from a single Sets of article to an article per set. However, if there is simply no way around it, if minimally acceptable detail makes for an impossible article, then there ought to be another solution than an article per set: from kingdom, we go to phylum, and not to races. I'm not a Magic fan, so I don't know what the organization principle would be that's analogous to the phylum. However, a general "sets of" is already present in the master Magic article, so this may be moot in any case. Geogre 03:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I get what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure I understand your reason. I don't understand why "If there are so many sets that the Sets of article is too long..., then I would rather see less detail on the individual sets than moving from a single Sets of article to an article per set." Why shouln't we have a good level of detail, even if it requires splitting off individual sets into their own articles? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:16, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Unhinged Article is not about a card (although some cards may merit encyclopedia articles). Therefore, the analogy is moot. In addition, I believe there is enough information to create an article on each set, or at least each expansion block. There is no reason why we should not have an article like this. On one point, however, the list of known cards should be reduced down a little bit, it's gotten a bit unwieldly. Ambush Commander 04:53, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Not independantly notable. --Improv 05:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, most m:tg sets can yeild encyclopedic articles, this article does need NPOV. —siroχo 06:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I'm working on a project on making article on every MTG set. See User:Grue/MTGSets. If you could have an article on each specific Pokemon, why you can't have an article on a whole expansion set. Grue 09:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that Unhinged is notable enough to deserve an article, and while the current article could use some improvement, it should not be deleted. Also, while Unhinged is more notable (in my opinion) than the average Magic set, I lean towards thinking that individual Magic sets (or at least Magic blocks) do deserve a page. Modargo 09:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it, or face the wrath of EXTREME DELETION. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and keep any M:TG expansion set articles. However, it's a fallacy to believe we must keep every card just because we keep sets. Few individual cards are as notable as a set, and by making set articles, we actually decrease the need for card articles (see: Black Lotus). Should one want to write on the (notable) card "Tolarian Academy," it would be merged into the Urza's Saga set. This precedent actually solves problems instead of making them. Cool Hand Luke 11:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It is notable. I'ven't played Magic since Unglued, I don't really know the rules anymore, but I found this article enjoyable. McKay 12:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 15:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -Sean Curtin 01:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Like it or not, this is WoTC's core business, and each set is the same as a publisher printing a book or a record label releasing an album - let me correct that - with probably $100 million in card sales last year, a best-selling book or album. Details of each set will be keepers. The Steve 10:24, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • merge? I see no point, we dont need a article on every single thing out there, ecpecilly not on a magic set of cards for something. The bandwith- think about it if we had a article for everything like this, this site would be twice as big, and would cost twice as much to keep online for the owners. User:Fledgeling 18:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P.S. we dont need a article for every single pokemon either
P.S.s. Or company
We don't need articles about all these magnolias either. Think of it. Grue 19:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While you bring up a good point (howd ya know ;) ), i do realize that different people hold different things as important and things that are needing to be adressed differ amoung people. This being said, however (i am used to informal forum style, this still feel stiff for me) i feel that species are a bit more noteable than card packs. All the 100 species of magnolia are not listed - (nor will they be, at leat by me),- only the 20 most noteable. If you look at the pine secion, every single species has a link and has been listed, and i feel that the magnolia section is incomplete without the major species being listed and a section completed for each species link (only about half of the scientific named species have links, if u noticed) Fledgeling
P.s. ok, a bit more than half (70%)
I'd just like to point out that use of bandwidth is or shouldn't be a major consideration; if an article draws enough traffic to have a non-negligible effect on bandwidth consumption, this implies the article is useful and the subject of the article is most likely notable enough to warrant its own article. With that said, I believe this article stands up well enough on its own merits. αγδεε(τ) 09:41, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. αγδεε(τ) 09:41, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is utterly pointless. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I find this article informative and useful. I don't see any good reason to delete it.Flow 21:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep One article each for an entire set is reasonable. --ShaunMacPherson 21:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE ExplorerCDT 05:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Five days have passed, vote count:

  • Keep = 15
  • Delete = 7
  • Merge = 1?

What do we do? Ambush Commander 20:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to delete the page, but with the vote going as it has, we keep. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:15, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
So does that mean we should untag Unhinged? Ambush Commander 04:43, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Yep. Let me resolve this for you. Cool Hand Luke 09:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unhinged&oldid=1140185976"