Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic system

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 keep. No prejudice against a potential merge. There's no clear consensus for merging in this discussion, but that conversation can continue outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic system

[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)

Heavily WP:OR article beyond supposed examples of where a magic system is used. The article seems to be largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There are little to no reliable sources explaining how the idea of a magic system is notable.

I am also nominating the following related page because it suffers from a similar problem:

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems there is considerable overlap with Magic (gaming). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a book on the subject; note that this also includes discussion of the hard/soft distinction. The topics are therefore notable per WP:NEXIST and the following policies apply: WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. As WP:BEFORE has not been cast correctly, that's 10 points from Slytherin. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson, and the one good source in the article already; failing that merge to Magic (gaming) as per above. BOZ (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Both to Magic (gaming). There is a lot of overlap between the three articles, and, in particular, Magic system and Hard and soft magic systems really do not need to be split into two articles. As stated by the nom, the two articles being nominated are pretty heavy in WP:OR, but merging the bits of good, source information from both, in addition to the book mentioned here by Andrew, into the main Magic (gaming) article would result in a single, well-sourced article covering the entire concept. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Using Chess as a comparative example, you just suggested redirecting Chess moves to Chess clock. Read the Magic (gaming) article again. It is about MP; a game mechanic designed to limit the use of magic within a magic system. Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The scope of that article can easily be changed to also encompass magic systems in general. If it were only "about" MP, it would be a dicdef._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I didn't suggest merely Redirecting, I suggested merging all three articles into one that discusses the overall concept of magic in gaming systems in general. Again, I see very little point in splitting the concept into three smaller articles with limited scope, each with extremely limited sourcing, when a single article would easily be able to cover the over all concept of magic in games without being overly long, and be well sourced.Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The topic is not restricted to games. Magic is used in a variety of fictional or constructed settings which may required it to be rationalised and systematised: virtual realities; shared universes and continuities; interface metaphors; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is terribly written. Guess what? That's not what AfD is for. Congrats, we can all go home early today. Before I go, I will take the liberty of removing the worst offender, the first section: some magic system by some guy. Anarchangel (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the secondary article that is nominated here, Hard and soft magic systems, which is based entirely on the magic rules created by the same guy. If you remove the information sourced to that one individual's ideas, there is really not much left. Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was much too flippant on my first entry. But instead of finding that I had erred in being too lenient, I found a wealth of sources when searching for "hard and soft magic systems", and apparently the "some guy" is mentioned by a lot of them. I dunno if he merits an article but I should not have dismissed him, and the second article seems solid as well. Anarchangel (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whenever video games or other games are reviewed, they usually review the magic system as a key part of those games. Dream Focus 04:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Magic (gaming). A magic system that is based on mana points is but one example across both tabletop and video games. There is going to be work needed to avoid OR, but re-orienting the approach to lay out common approaches of magic systems in games makes sense. --Masem (t) 17:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but don't necessarily merge. Agree with others that reliable sources absolutely exist on this notable concept and nom seems to confuse poor writing with non-notable topic. Might make sense to institute a strict-ish "must be referenced to a non-primary source" policy though. A decent amount of the content (especially in Hard and soft magic systems) is related to Magic in literature, not gaming, so I don't think a merge entirely makes sense. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 13 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.