Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Spellbinder

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 (also note that as a separate action, I speedy-deleted the article as WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Spellbinder

Some entries in the list are identical to their counterparts in [1], others are shortened versions. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and the article appears to be listcruft. Thin boy 00 @093, i.e. 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game guide, in-universe (assumes familiarity with the game). JJL (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what makes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_rules above this that allows it to be kept and this to not be? --jftsang 13:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a good argument, really. --Thin boy 00 @737, i.e. 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment The main reason is that Magic: The Gathering is considerably more notable than Spellbinder, or at least it has third party reliable sources to establish its notability, and Spellbinder's article has few sources that do the same. The fact that someone wrote and published a program to play it doesn't really convince me. It has no mention in the media, or if it does, it's not cited. --Thin boy 00 @747, i.e. 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm uncertain whether to use {{copyvio}}, given that I would need to blank the page, but it is very similar to the URL I posted above. I did not nominate it solely because of these issues, and I want it to have a clean (normal) debate, but I really don't know whether copyvio should wait five days (or four now). Advice? --Thin boy 00 @769, i.e. 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I decided to go ahead and do it because copyvios are a big deal. Anyone who wants to see what it originally looked like can use the history. --Thin boy 00 @816, i.e. 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (yes, I know, I'm making way too many) please see this for the version as nominated. --Thin boy 00 @823, i.e. 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with Spellbinder. Together this and it's parent article could be something useful. --Thw1309 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep what, exactly? The previous text was replaced with {{copyvio}}. Are you recommending rewriting the entire list? Besides, usefulness usually isn't good enough, especially when the subject of the article in question is not demonstrably notable through third party reliable sources. Given the notability, although a brief synopsis may be appropriate, do we really need the long and boring part of the rules? --Thin boy 00 @1000, i.e. 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the page has been cleared and replaced with the copyright violation tag, I see no point in keeping the page at all. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2008 (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.