591:; there's no question that it exists as a fictional element based on the published primary sources. Independence from primary sources is an element of notability, not verifiability. 3) You appear to have overlooked the various reliable sources I've documented above. Just because most of them don't deal extensively enough with the topic to establish notability doesn't mean they are inapplicable as verification. Mind you, I'm not arguing that the article be kept as a separate topic, but you're arguing for deletion well beyond what is actually supportable by policy.
963:
This is what happens when people read policies through the lens of language nuances rather than common sense. A manufacturer's catalog or product specification is generally the best and most reliable source of basic info about a product: plenty fine for V, inapplicable for N, and not reliably NPOV.
757:
despite the little of value to save from this article, I am still left a little uneasy voting delete. Verifiability is easily met, and I have seen many articles survive with notability sources worse than a wired blog and an online magazine article, before mentioning the book references. There appears
518:
is part of a core policy and applies to all discussions about whether or not to retain article content for lack of sources. I have performed the usual Google searches, but have not immediately found reliable third-party sources that could make this subject and this particular content verifiable and
709:
Which would be fine, except that I haven't yet seen you contest anything. Simply noting that "this is unsourced and needs to be improved" is not contesting a statement. The alternative would be that any sentence, in any article, which doesn't have specific inline citation counts as "challenged or
614:
unsourced. That's why the policy says that challenged material "must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material" and not "... must be supported by a source that exists somewhere". In other words, verifiability does not assert, as you believe, that "the statements
758:
to be a release of something called new
Phyrexia in June and with over 1.5 million google hits, I certainly don't have the time to check all the sources. While I don't think that WP:GAMEGUIDE strictly applies to boardgames the way that it has recently been applied, clearly the current article has
687:
I agree that the lack of notability precludes the continued existence of a separate article. I also agree that there are probably primary sources out there somewhere that could be used for verification of at least the basics of this fictional concept (but not necessarily all of the current text).
443:
Note that the Google Books link above turns up a number of hits that appear to be non-vanity press books; whether they are RS or primary remains to be seen. Astonishingly enough, Google NEWS turns up several hits for the term in apparent RS coverage of Magic: The
Gathering tournaments. Does not
513:
defines "verifiability", in its first sentence, as "whether readers can check that material in
Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source". Because there are no references in the article, readers cannot make this check and the content is therefore unverifiable until it is
884:
If they are brought to AfD, and nobody can or cares to find appropriate sources during the AfD, yes. After all, verifiability is a core policy, and we do not indefinitely keep content that does not comply with core policy. And articles can be userfied and restored if sources are later found.
619:
be sourced anywhere", as that would require proving a negative, which is rarely possible. The verifiability requirement exists for the benefit of readers, not editors, and therefore it requires that the sources be actually cited in the article, not that they theoretically exist somewhere.
661:, a perfectly fine reliable source for its own products despite that page being self-published. Even if we interpret V per your semantics, the content is still plenty verifiable. The fact that the article lacks direct links to sources, rather, means that the article isn't currently
1031:... and since when does a merge outcome require that unsourced content be "stuck" in a target article? If you have a problem with the fact that the article can be sourced but currently isn't, that's a different matter. That would be a "redirect until someone sources it" outcome.
554:
I am familiar with that section of policy, which begins: "Knowledge (XXG) articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", and continues: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." This is also reflected in
362:
I disagree that it would require separate discussions. Maybe separate for WP:Verifiability and WP:Gameguide, but definitely not for WP:Notability. Albeit, Phyrexia is arguable more notable than those other locations. But at the very least, other articles, such as
692:, cited above, says that contested material must be removed unless it is inline-sourced. By AfDing the article, I am contesting the entire material. It may therefore not be retained, not even via a merger, except to the extent it is first inline-sourced.
907:
which focus heavily on topics like this. Is that site reliable? In it's area it appears to be the single most reliable source of information there is. And no, I'd no idea such a thing existed, I stopped playing Magic more than 15 years ago.
559:: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it." This matches what I've said above: No secondary sources means no article. In view of this, I am not entirely certain that it is
1066:
to presume notability, there is no basis to keep the article. I do not believe that a merge is an acceptable option because the text in the article is a detailed plot-only description of a fictional work and
162:
622:
In this case, the sources (if there are any) are not cited in the article, hence the content is unverifiable (for readers!) until somebody adds the actual reliable sources, not merely vague references to
790:
I agree but I don't think that notability is currently met for its own article, and while it may be true that inuniverse can be fixed via editing I don't believe any of the current article would remain.
605:
Existence is not the same as verifiability. "Unverifiable" asserts that readers cannot "check that material in
Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source" (as per the definition in
269:
949:
think it's likely to get things wrong in it's own little domain? SPSes are often problematic from a WP:N viewpoint, but in their own areas they are sources of highly reliable information.
688:
Where we disagree is whether the current material should be merged in its currently unsourced (but potentially sourceable) form. I believe it should not, because the plain wording of
123:
627:, to the actual article. Until this happens, the content is unsuitable for retention whether as a separate article or as part of another article. To the extent the content
587:. 1a) or redirected, for that matter. 2) Unverifiable asserts that the statements cannot be sourced anywhere. Phyrexia is one game setting for a product published by
246:
156:
673:
is both wrong and pointless: the real issue isn't V, which can be done at any point using links provided just like I did, but rather its standalone notability.
429:. Lack of notability for an individual fictional element is insufficient grounds for deletion when an appropriate merge target exists or is articulable.
718:"that's unsourced"). You're narrowly reading policies in a way that if applied would lead to unreasonable results inconsistent with community consensus.
580:
Shall I catalogue the deficiencies? 1) Fictional elements can almost always be merged, rather than deleted. The entire nomination ignores that
653:
Readers can (by following links, using Google, Internet catalogs, etc.) ascertain that
Phyrexia is in fact a published fictional element.
17:
59:
1019:
383:
540:? Your above comment seems to betray a profound lack of understanding of the actual policy regarding usage of primary sources.
426:
1078:
812:
714:
be removed. In fact, statements exist most articles, and that's perfectly fine until someone else says "that's wrong" (
96:
91:
1117:
177:
36:
776:
In universe problems can be fixed via editing--deletion is rarely the way forward if notability requirements are met.
100:
144:
483:. Have you personally tried to source it and failed? Note that primary sources are perfectly adequate for meeting
811:
while this may or may not be above WP:N (I've not looked at the sources yet), there exist an obvious merge target
83:
1116:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
964:
Using sources appropriately depends on knowing which sources can be trusted to authenticate which statements.
924:
WP:V may be easy, but it requires that the sources be actually added to the article. That website looks to be
654:
367:
should be considered. Unless you can definitively prove from policy that such considerations do not matter.
1077:, so the content of the article can be perfectly omitted. A simple mention in a list (as it is right now in
759:
371:
138:
1082:
462:, it is your responsibility to cite sources for unsourced content that you would like to keep, not mine.
312:
202:
1081:) is more than enough. In my opinion, all text in the nominated article is material more in line with a
1073:
1014:
379:
295:
205:
as a completely in-universe description (i.e., written as though it were factual) of a game concept.
134:
658:
537:
1102:
1040:
1026:
973:
958:
940:
917:
897:
875:
857:
828:
799:
785:
771:
727:
704:
682:
647:
600:
575:
549:
531:
504:
474:
453:
438:
407:
387:
353:
332:
284:
261:
237:
217:
170:
65:
1068:
632:
515:
492:
488:
459:
304:
1036:
969:
795:
767:
723:
678:
596:
545:
500:
449:
434:
403:
1086:
624:
184:
904:
WP:N is hard, but WP:V is pretty darn easy. Other than the primary sources we have sites like
320:
328:
280:
257:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1059:
1098:
398:
While deletion would indeed require separate discussions, merging or redirection would not.
233:
1090:
925:
866:
Are you arguing that we should delete all articles which have lacked sources for years?
842:
631:
made verifiable by adding reliable sources, even primary ones, it could be merged. But the
581:
1009:
954:
913:
871:
824:
781:
375:
316:
293:- If this article is to be deleted, shall we also delete the articles for other planes in
1002:
931:
888:
848:
695:
638:
566:
522:
465:
344:
208:
49:
1071:. I also do not believe that the topic Phyrexia is needed to understand the card game
1063:
1055:
1051:
838:
689:
670:
607:
556:
510:
484:
198:
194:
150:
1032:
965:
791:
763:
719:
674:
665:--in that it doesn't help the reader find the appropriate RS--but not that it is not
592:
541:
496:
458:
Unverifiable content should not be retained, whether in this or another article. Per
445:
430:
399:
193:
Fictional location from a trading card game. Tagged as unsourced since 2008, failing
87:
364:
324:
276:
253:
117:
1094:
229:
1062:
with no real-world context. With no references independent of the subject from
1001:
unsourced material to be taken from one article and stuck in another. We want
950:
909:
867:
820:
777:
837:
The problem is that the content is entirely unsourced for years now, failing
563:
position that reflects a less than optimal understanding of core policy.
308:
300:
79:
71:
519:
notable. If you find any, please feel free to cite them in the article.
635:
to do the source-adding rests on those who wish to retain the content.
588:
425:
this and other fictional locations into something along the lines of
1069:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a complete exposition of all possible details
1110:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
495:
applies to deletion discussions, and governs this conversation.
905:
270:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
113:
109:
105:
169:
479:
Please cite which content in the article is unverifi
444:
appear that BEFORE was followed by the nominator...
669:. You arguing that sourcing doesn't exist to meet
183:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1120:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1085:than Knowledge (XXG). While it may have several
1050:As stated in the nomination, the article fails
1079:Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Artificial Planes
8:
845:. Moving it elsewhere does not remedy that.
268:Note: This debate has been included in the
245:Note: This debate has been included in the
491:only applies to specific article content--
267:
247:list of Games-related deletion discussions
244:
1060:plot-only description of a fictional work
427:List of locations in Magic: the Gathering
341:That would require separate discussions.
1091:existence is not the same as notability
819:this should be a merge and redirect.
813:Plane_(Magic:_The_Gathering)#Phyrexia
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
657:is a good example. Hasbro is, per
24:
928:and thus presumably unreliable.
762:problems so should be deleted.
1:
710:likely to be challenged" and
610:given above) i.e., that it
1137:
1103:02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
1041:04:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
1027:03:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
974:00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
959:23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
941:06:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
918:01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
898:21:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
876:20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
858:19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
829:13:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
800:16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
786:13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
772:19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
728:17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
705:06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
683:00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
648:22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
601:22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
576:20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
550:20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
532:20:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
505:20:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
475:19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
454:07:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
439:01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
408:17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
388:17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
354:19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
333:00:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
285:00:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
262:00:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
238:19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
218:17:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
66:16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
1113:Please do not modify it.
536:Have you ever looked at
32:Please do not modify it.
1074:Magic: The Gathering
296:Magic: The Gathering
1064:third-party sources
313:Rabiah the Infinite
61:Operation Big Bear
44:The result was
939:
896:
856:
703:
646:
585:preferred outcome
574:
530:
473:
391:
374:comment added by
352:
287:
273:
264:
250:
228:per nomination --
216:
201:, and also fails
1128:
1115:
1025:
1022:
1017:
1012:
938:
936:
929:
895:
893:
886:
855:
853:
846:
815:, and so at the
702:
700:
693:
645:
643:
636:
573:
571:
564:
529:
527:
520:
472:
470:
463:
390:
368:
351:
349:
342:
274:
251:
215:
213:
206:
188:
187:
173:
121:
103:
62:
56:
34:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1118:deletion review
1111:
1058:. It also is a
1020:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1003:sourced content
932:
930:
889:
887:
849:
847:
696:
694:
639:
637:
567:
565:
557:WP:V#Notability
523:
521:
466:
464:
369:
345:
343:
317:Ravnica (plane)
209:
207:
130:
94:
78:
75:
64:
60:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1134:
1132:
1123:
1122:
1106:
1105:
1045:
1044:
1043:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
926:self-published
901:
900:
879:
878:
861:
860:
832:
831:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
393:
392:
357:
356:
336:
335:
265:
242:
241:
240:
191:
190:
127:
74:
69:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1133:
1121:
1119:
1114:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:verifiability
1049:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1004:
1000:
996:
993:
992:
975:
971:
967:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
943:
942:
937:
935:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
906:
903:
902:
899:
894:
892:
883:
882:
881:
880:
877:
873:
869:
865:
864:
863:
862:
859:
854:
852:
844:
841:and probably
840:
836:
835:
834:
833:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
807:
801:
797:
793:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
761:
760:WP:INUNIVERSE
756:
753:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
708:
707:
706:
701:
699:
691:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
644:
642:
634:
630:
626:
618:
613:
609:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
579:
578:
577:
572:
570:
562:
558:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
528:
526:
517:
512:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
471:
469:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
420:
409:
405:
401:
397:
396:
395:
394:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
366:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
350:
348:
340:
339:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
292:
289:
288:
286:
282:
278:
271:
266:
263:
259:
255:
248:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
214:
212:
204:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
57:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1112:
1109:
1072:
1047:
1007:
998:
994:
946:
933:
890:
850:
816:
808:
754:
715:
711:
697:
666:
662:
640:
628:
621:
616:
611:
584:
568:
560:
524:
487:. Note that
480:
467:
422:
370:— Preceding
365:Middle-Earth
346:
305:Rath (plane)
294:
290:
225:
210:
203:WP:GAMEGUIDE
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1087:Google hits
509:All of it.
157:free images
1083:game guide
1056:notability
934:Sandstein
891:Sandstein
851:Sandstein
698:Sandstein
667:verifiable
659:WP:SELFPUB
641:Sandstein
569:Sandstein
538:WP:PRIMARY
525:Sandstein
468:Sandstein
376:Ninjagecko
347:Sandstein
211:Sandstein
997:We don't
633:WP:BURDEN
516:WP:BURDEN
514:sourced.
493:WP:BEFORE
489:WP:BURDEN
460:WP:BURDEN
321:Shandalar
277:• Gene93k
254:• Gene93k
53:Wizardman
1033:Jclemens
966:Jclemens
792:Tetron76
764:Tetron76
720:Jclemens
675:Jclemens
663:verified
625:WP:GHITS
593:Jclemens
542:Jclemens
497:Jclemens
446:Jclemens
431:Jclemens
400:Jclemens
384:contribs
372:unsigned
309:Mercadia
301:Kamigawa
124:View log
80:Phyrexia
72:Phyrexia
945:Do you
809:Comment
325:Yonskii
291:Comment
163:WP refs
151:scholar
97:protect
92:history
1095:Jfgslo
1048:Delete
995:Delete
947:really
843:WP:NOR
755:Delete
617:cannot
589:Hasbro
582:WP:ATD
319:, and
230:Melaen
226:Delete
135:Google
101:delete
46:delete
1016:COMMS
1011:ƒETCH
951:Hobit
910:Hobit
868:Hobit
821:Hobit
817:least
778:Hobit
423:Merge
178:JSTOR
139:books
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1099:talk
1054:and
1037:talk
999:want
970:talk
955:talk
914:talk
872:talk
839:WP:V
825:talk
796:talk
782:talk
768:talk
724:talk
712:must
690:WP:V
679:talk
671:WP:V
655:this
608:WP:V
597:talk
546:talk
511:WP:V
501:talk
485:WP:V
481:able
450:talk
435:talk
404:talk
380:talk
329:talk
281:talk
258:talk
234:talk
199:WP:N
197:and
195:WP:V
171:FENS
145:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
716:not
275:--
252:--
185:TWL
122:– (
1101:)
1093:.
1089:,
1039:)
1005:.
972:)
957:)
916:)
874:)
827:)
798:)
784:)
770:)
726:)
681:)
629:is
612:is
599:)
561:my
548:)
503:)
452:)
437:)
406:)
386:)
382:•
331:)
323:?
315:,
311:,
307:,
303:,
299:?
283:)
272:.
260:)
249:.
236:)
165:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
48:.
1097:(
1035:(
1021:/
1008:/
968:(
953:(
912:(
870:(
823:(
794:(
780:(
766:(
722:(
677:(
595:(
544:(
499:(
448:(
433:(
402:(
378:(
327:(
279:(
256:(
232:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.