Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Magic: The Gathering

Magic: The Gathering
Several months old, not even a stub, and the only edit in months has been a removal of an advertisement. Too bad, I could have used advice on how to sell my collection off. --Gabe Sechan 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. --JMRyan 08:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Heck, even I can't learn from this stub. --Dragontamer 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)\


 * Delete - Not really getting anywhere. -Matt 00:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is a stub. Keep it and wait for someone to expand or merge it. I do not like to delete stubs (though I do like to delete copies of Wikipedia articles). --Kernigh 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My vote is still "keep", but I have to acknowledge that the stub in its current form is trivial. It has no table of contents; it only has one sentence suggesting what a book might be. --Kernigh 01:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not only is it a stub that has generated no interest among contributers, but it also has an interesting naming problem (looks like the "Magic" wikibook, or the "magic" namespace, with a subpage "The gathering"). To make this one work out at all, we would eventually end up redirecting this page to a more appropriate venue. I say we save ourselves the trouble now, delete this page, and eventually create one with a less confusing name. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, as per note below. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 15:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it is a stub, it's a really bad one. 85.240.145.244 13:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This is little more than a brief description, and there is a much better article about magic the gathering at wikipedia CatastrophicToad 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A large amount of work has been done on this book recently, and it no longer suffers from the fault of being a "really bad" stub. I have changed my vote to keep, and I urge other voters to reconsider the matter. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 15:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep seems to be improving. Grue 15:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Now that someone's working on it, it shouldn't be deleted.  I hope it becomes more than just a collection of links, but giving them time to improve it is definitely reasonable.  --Gabe Sechan 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The user who started expanding the book removed the vfd tag, so if anyone still wants to delete it, they should add that tag again. Also, the book was blanked and replaced by a vandal, so I undid that damage. --Kernigh 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep in its current form. It is showing progress with added modules and some new content, and certainly fits the description of what a Wikibook ought to be made of.  While still largely a stub, there has been a major cleanup effort and I give credit to those who have been working on it lately.  I fixed up the module naming problems as well, just to give this Wikibook a little extra encouragement.  I don't see any realistic reason to add the VfD tag back, but if you really thing this needs to go, state your reason here.  --Rob Horning 13:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Current concensus is to keep the new version of this page. I will archive this discussion in 1 week. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)