Forum:What constitutes an archetype?

While moving some of the archetype pages per Forum:Singular archetype page names?, I've come across several pages that don't really seem to qualify as archetypes in my eyes. I've only gotten through the letters "A" and "B" so far and have found "Baboons of the Forest" and "Bugroths". The cards are clearly related, but they have no support and only two or three members each.

Then there's the "Alchemy" and "Chemical" pages. The former seems simply be "anything Amnael used". I realize that all those cards do have relations to actual alchemy, but grouping them all together doesn't seem right to me. Expanding this to include "Alchemy Beasts" and "Primordial Suns" as sub-archetypes seems to make more sense to me. In the case of "Chemical", these cards clearly related, but them actually being an archetype doesn't seem right to me either.

So are there any "qualifications" for what constitutes an archetype? Some of these just seem a bit excessive to me. Any thoughts? Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 05:58, January 12, 2011 (UTC)