Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard and soft magic systems


 * 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 merge to Brandon Sanderson. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hard and soft magic systems (2nd nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment: Chekhov's gun is a broadly understood and accepted concept taught in established institutions of higher learning that originates from one of the great writers of modern literature. The same cannot be said of this pet theory of a contemporary genre writer of limited recognition.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Merge to Brandon Sanderson per Rorshacma's rationale. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping, but to answer your question, yes, information in any article that is not properly sourced should not be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment Those added sources are not from reliable sources, though. They're writing blogs, peoples' personal websites, etc.  These are not considered reliable sources, per WP:SPS.  Establishing notability isn't just finding how many times that a certain term or concept has been used on the internet, its finding information from actual reliable sources.  The only one of the added sources that could be considered a reliable source is the one book that I already mentioned above. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK T A L K 12:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not see any evidence that this topic is covered by reliable sources. At present, except for the book source, all of the cited pages appear to be blogs. This is simply not enough to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just added two more references, one from a literary magazine and the other from a peer reviewed academic journal. Please people, just do a couple quick Google searches to see if a topic is notable before you try to claim it isn't and should be deleted. I've now added eight references to this article with a small amount of spare time. I genuinely don't understand how people can find the motivation to go find an article they're not interested in and write up a comment in favor of deleting it, without having the motivation to type a couple of keywords into Google. It boggles my mind. -NorsemanII (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * those new sources look much more better than the six added last week. The Mythlore article is certainly reliable and decently in-depth. I don't know about the other source though; do we know that The Curious Reader is reliable? After reading them I am leaning towards saying topic is notable.BenKuykendall (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This is one author's own idea about how writers can think about "magic systems" while writing a novel. It is simply helpful advice for writers and not a generally accepted, wide-spread concept or practice.
 * Keep It's similar to Chekhov's gun or Three Laws of Robotics. All of them are just some author's ideas. But that author is someone very very influential in all these cases. Also it's not just Sanderson's suggestions for better writing. Regardless of who first suggested this categorization, soft vs. hard magic system is a valid and useful way to categorize speculative fictions. navidk (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither the concept nor it's creator are a widely recognized and / or accepted as your two examples. It is not the same thing. In fact, it is nothing more that writing advice that said writer of limited recognition and importance uses in his writing classes.


 * Delete- Although this is an interesting subject and by no means the worst article of its type I have seen here, ultimately it is still too much of a how-to guide based on cobbling together bits and pieces from sources that are predominantly blogs. Reyk YO! 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP yet again Six said KEEP months ago when this went to AFD, one said merge, and no one but the nominator said delete. Anyway, as I said last time: Whenever video games or other games are reviewed, they usually review the magic system as a key part of those games.  Reliable sources give significant coverage to this concept such as https://www.cbr.com/shonen-action-rules-fullmetal-alchemist-my-hero-academia/ and https://www.thegamer.com/harry-potter-rpg-never-happen-because-magic-system-sucks/   D r e a m Focus  21:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable per WP:SIGCOV In January 2020 this subject's merits were debated and the editors overwhelming decided to Keep. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.