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 redirect to Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995#Mechanics. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legend (Magic: The Gathering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just one minor aspect of Magic: The Gathering rules (itself a problematic article when it comes to WP:GNG). I have serious doubts this topic meets GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A relatively niche part of the rules of MTG that doesn't have much in terms of independent coverage. Possibly could redirect towards Magic: The Gathering rules, but if that article is kept. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The worst case would be merger to the set that introduced the concept: Legends (Magic: The Gathering). But that was a long time ago and the concept has had significant evolution since and so there's plenty to say – see A History of Legends, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The set redirects to the list and so is not a particularly valid target. As for the cited source, I am not sure it meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy - it is a niche blog or fanzine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:IN-U. Avilich (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Coverage of this particular segment of the card game does not appear to be sufficient to support an independent article. It is covered at Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995#Mechanics, so I would not be opposed as a Redirect to there, as an alternative. Rorshacma (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the spirit of ATD/PRESERVE, I think a redirect is fine, and perhaps a few sentences could even be merged there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Magic: The Gathering expansion sets, 1993–1995#Mechanics as suggested above, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The proposed merger sounds like the right way to go. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2021 (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.