This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Magic. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Magic|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Magic. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Magic/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Magic and magicians

Please be sure to follow the three basic steps when nominating an article for deletion. While not required, it is courteous to also notify interested people—such as those who created the article, or those who have contributed significant work to it. Thank you.

Articles for deletion

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. Owen× ☎ 18:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servitor (chaos magic)

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

This article presents what appears to be fiction, or a component of some esoteric belief system, as fact (MOS:INUNIVERSE). Even if the concept were notable, it would need a rewrite from a real-world perspective (WP:TNT). But I doubt that it is notable: All cited sources appear to be associated with proponents of this belief system, rendering them insufficiently independent to be reliable. Sandstein 16:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources cited seem non-independent, and the article appears to be written intentionally to present fiction as fact. Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 23:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete word salad nonsense, ridiculous claims presented as fact. -Roxy the dog 12:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a concept has to be explained within its context. Most concepts are not going to have significant coverage from outside of their field of study. Even if there should be more content in the history section, the concept section and its sources are a good starting point. Brigandeur (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the reasons for which I have proposed the deletion of this article. Sandstein 08:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

This article presents what appears to be fiction, or a component of some esoteric belief system, as fact (MOS:INUNIVERSE).
- As you state later, the subject here is part of a belief system, not fiction. MOS:INUNIVERSE only discusses fiction, so doesn't apply here. Instead, this looks like a case of WP:RNPOV, which says primary sources from the belief system are also used.
Even if the concept were notable, it would need a rewrite from a real-world perspective (WP:TNT).
- What is needed is a neutral point of view. I think this would be mostly minor copy editing to attribute the statements about how the concept works to adherents of the belief system.
But I doubt that it is notable: All cited sources appear to be associated with proponents of this belief system, rendering them insufficiently independent to be reliable.
- You can rely on people in a field of study to explain a topic in that field. I wouldn't look for non-oceanographers to explain a concept in oceanography. In the previous discussion Talk:Servitor (chaos magic) other sources were found, such as Lynne Hume & Nevill Drury (2013), The Varieties of Magical Experience: Indigenous, Medieval, and Modern Magic, which is not affiliated with this belief system. So notability can probably be shown.

Brigandeur (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the concept section of the article to demarcate the opinions of the practitioners. Brigandeur (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article still presents this belief system as a fact and still cites no independent sources. Sandstein 13:30, 6 July 2025 (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.

Proposed deletions