Deletion of List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (3rd nomination)

Comment: with extreme cleanup. Though I'm usually the first to cry foul when people cry , this is sort of close. It is really packed to the gills with |fancruft at the very least, even if it's not really a strategy guide. And yes, folks, I agree bullet point 3 under  is talking about videogames, bullet point 1 can apply to anything. But to me, the fundamental question is this: is it really within the scope of wikipedia to collect a comprehensive description of every keyword in the game? I'm thinking not, though I do think a shorter list of currently common keywords can be helpful is letting readers grasp the game and in the scope of wikipedia. I'm seeing the point of the delete folks, but am erring on the side of a weak keep here on the principle that |AfD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:FANCRUFT||WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Nominator cites , which does not cover physical games, and, even if it did, the content here would not run afoul of it ("An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right .... Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.")  Beyond that, there is plenty of independent RS coverage of MtG which includes these keywords, such as http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/stories/s2618067.htm ABC(au), http://www.gamezone.com/news/scourge_to_be_released_on_may_26th Gamezone, and http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/01/geekdads-conflu/ Wired--and that's just a sampling for trample, cycling, and unblockable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: Ugh. Falls foul of  ("''...avoid lists of gameplay... concepts, unless these are notable in their own right''") and common-sense dictates that rule applies here. See also . Zero independent, reliable evidence of the accuracy/notability. Zero analysis of the subject matter because such an endeavour is impossible for a list of "abilities" for a marginally-popular card game. This article is absolute crap and I see no possibility that it could be improved due to the subject matter being unencyclopaedic.I'm sure it's very  to Dungeons & Dragons fans and that they really  it, but that is no reason to prolong the life of this woebegone fancruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:NOTMANUAL||WP:USEFUL||WP:LIKE)

Comment: This is obviously a spinoff from the main article.  If the game is notable and has significant jargon then a glossary seems reasonable - see glossary of chess and glossary of poker, for example.  Note also that  is specifically about videogames and this is a card game
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: as unlikely search term) and summary in main MTG article. Violates  as well as probably concepts relating to .  (Technically this is a glossary, which can be allowed for '''broad''' topics that need a common point of terminology reference.  This is not one of those broad topics.)  Understanding that cards in MTG have these modifiers that affect the normal rule cycle, as well as an example or three, is completely fine in the body of describing the game.  Plus, since we can also link to http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules_20120501.pdf the official rules in the game article, this is extremely duplicative
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:DICTDEF)