Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Two books, the first Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized is not notable but clearly exists, the second Advanced Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized is utterly non notable or even really verifiable.

Even dividing the search term in two parts only gives 93 results (for the two books combined)[1], and only one author, Titus Chalk, mentions these books in any later books. One review at the time of publishing, and a near total lack of lasting impact. It looks as if the titles of the books are in reality both "Totally Unauthorized Magic: The Gathering" and they have the subtitles "Player's Guide" and "Advanced Player's Guide". Fram (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction These are two separate and distinct books.

Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized is a basic guide for new players on how to play the game.
Advanced Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized interviews a number of professional players about building a killer tournament deck, card by card. Very different books.Guinness323 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Not really that distinct, they are clearly marketed as being two parts of the same series, with the exact same layout and lettering of the cover. And they share the same problems, which is what matters most here. If it would turn out that one is notable and the other isn't, then one gets deleted and the other not. So far, neither is shown to be notable though. Fram (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Neither book have any information in reliable sources beyond a single review in Arcane magazine which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2020 (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.