Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in the Bartimaeus Trilogy

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in the Bartimaeus Trilogy

This list of minor terminology does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Trilogy through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. It is just an unnecessary collection of terms that only need to be covered when necessary. TTN (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept. I feel that this article does have information that deserves its own article and not just brief mention. For example the nature of demons and their summoning is a major idea the understanding of which underlies the entire trilogy and without which the other articles would make no sense. While this information could be included in other articles they would soon become unwieldy because much of it is vital and would need to be kept. Therefore if it is deleted (which it shouldn't be) the more relevant details need to be merged with Bartmaeus Trilogy article.--Beligaronia (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom which pretty much says it all. Eusebeus (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Beligaronia said, much of the information in this article is important in understanding the series. Of course, if it can be cleaned up (proper citations, and removing some un-needed information), it will be even better. — Insanity Incarnat e 07:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As useful and encyclopedic information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this is a fictional material. Wikipedia works on verifiability, which isn't shown in here. The article doesn't show real world notability from reliable sources. It does have problems listed clearly in WP:INUNIVERSE. For this moment, I'd say delete, or at best redirect to Bartimaeus Trilogy. Dekisugi (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The nominator and Dekisugi said it all, really. This is unsourced, excessively lengthy fancruft that doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's standards on verifiability and notability. Reyk _YO! 19:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Bartimaeus Trilogy#Universe. This article is in need of a cleanup, which is not cause for deletion. Citations ought to be added, and some in-universe sections rewritten or removed. If, once this process is complete, the article is too small to stand by itself I would, like Beligaronia above, support a merge to the relevant section of the main series article. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is also completely without reliable secondary sources and, I suspect, unsourceable. That is a reason for deletion. Reyk _YO! 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article refactors some things from a specific book series and combines it, probably, with some original research and its written in an INUNIVERSE point of view and, IMO, there is hope to change this view

because of the subject discussed. It doesn't show any real world notability as well. --Magioladitis (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, (almost) all of the content of this article can be confirmed directly with the books, and very little of it is original research or speculation. Compare to Magic in Harry Potter: the only sources are the author and the books, and no more are really needed. This article is written in an in-universe style, but this can be fixed without deleting it. — Insanity Incarnat e 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major topic in major work. worth an article all the sources on the books will deal with it as 3rd party sources. No OR, no speculation. Only quetion is whethr to combine with the main article,but i think there's enoguh to develop separately. DGG (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2008 (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.