Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard and soft magic systems

Hard and soft magic systems

[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)

This seems to be a concept invented by some bloggers that never caught on beyond their blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much the product of one man's ideas to be considered a broadly applicable set of ideas as this article implies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does this argument also work for the Chekhov's gun article? Chekhov's gun is a product of one person's ideas, and any product of one person's ideas cannot be broadly applied (?), and anything which cannot be broadly applied should not be a Wikipedia article (?), right? -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already discussed this earlier this year – see WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again ... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic is notable and so should be covered per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson - Unlike the broader topic of Magic system, which was the primary article discussed in the prior AFD, this term/concept is based entirely on a single individual's idea. The sources currently in the article are all invalid for establishing notability (three are from non-reliable sources, three are just written by the person who coined the term). In the prior AFD, Andrew found one source that mentioned the concept, but even that was limited to summarizing Sanderson's paper on the subject, and is the only seemingly reliable source I have found discussing the concept in detail. However, while I don't think the sources support an independent article, the author that coined the concept is notable and has his own article, so it would make sense to discuss the concept there, though obviously the merge would need to be limited to just the definition and origin of the term, and not the copious, unsourced examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson per Rorshacma's rationale. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the consensus that it should be merged. The merger will reduce the length of the article of information vital to understanding the concept behind "hard and soft" magic systems, simply because they're not sourced properly. If this article in its complete form can be fused in the main one without cutting out the content, I would support the merger. I do not support it, however, on the basis that the ideas presented here are important for understanding different types of literary development on the subject of fantasy writing. girleymen (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information that isn't sourced properly is not supposed to be kept in articles regardless of whether or not a merger occurs. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been sourced properly, it's all essentially the same one source. Someone else has added more links but the main content of this article has a source backing it. There are instances in Wikipedia articles were something is not sourced properly and still on the page and this site has been known to host links from unreliable sources that is the crux of criticism against it in the academic field. Removing this information weakens people's understanding of this concept, and a very helpful tool at that, on the ground that it only has one primary source? How many sources does it need to have to be notable? There are figures in history whose pages are less than a paragraph long that are still on this site. Should they be deleted too? girleymen (talk) Girleymen (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The article is not notable in its own right, but is applicable and has enough references to be included in Sanderson's article. The examples, although unsourced, could be condensed and kept if given proper explanations. My recommendation is two examples per type of magic. BlacknoseDace (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Sanderson. The topic itself is not notable, but it does deserve some coverage on the page of the person who invented the concept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about notability: I would like to highlight that the terms are becoming increasingly used and have indeed caught on. You can see them on Reddit pages and YouTube channels that discuss fiction writing since as far as last year. Searching the terms "hard magic" or "soft magic" on r/magicbuilding, r/fantasy, or YouTube will point you to examples. Cosmonought (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To alter a quote from Hitman 2, if Wikipedia looked to YouTube and Reddit as the sources that defined notability this website would have collapsed a long time ago. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your kind explanation. In any case I am happy to throw in my two cents to note that these terms are searched and discussed a lot. Cosmonought (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Reddit and Youtube aren't reliable sources, but they are a very good way to determine if things are becoming notable or popular. I would still recommend a merge due to the lack of reliable sources. BlacknoseDace (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to magic system, while it is an interesting topic and has some reliable coverage I don't see there being enough right now to have its own spin-off article. It could very likely (based on YouTube and Reddit searches) one day become more popular and earn its own article but not right now.★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added six references from six different authors citing this topic including a book on designing magic systems for games. I came to Wikipedia looking for more information on this topic as it had come up in a discussion, and I would be mildly annoyed to have to sift through Sanderson's page or the page on magic systems to find this. This also should not fall into the same categories as Sanderson does (or vice versa), as that would also create an annoying barrier to finding the information I'm looking for. The article itself leaves a lot of room for improvement, but that's not what AfD is for. -NorsemanII (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]