Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magicians in fantasy


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

List of magicians in fantasy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is an almost infinite list of magicians in fantasy - almost every fantasy novel has one, sometimes dozens. This seems like an indiscriminate list, and it is unclear what purpose it serves. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup, and there are plenty of actually notable magicians in fantasy, like Gandalf the Grey or Harry Potter. Only magicians that are independently notable should be listed, e.g. ones that have their own article, and are primarily described as magicians (not just being able to use magic).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * AfD not being clean-up has nothing to do with having an indiscriminate list. Are any of the entries notable for being magicians in fantasy, or is it just an arbitrary list? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems indiscriminate currently, but it can be cleaned up to have clear inclusion criteria.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: No lead, no inclusion criteria. Although the Force can be utilized for magical-like abilities like telekinesis, I doubt that the Sith could be considered magicians. No references except for the last 7 entries of "Fairy tales, myths and legends" and 3 interviews of the same actress playing a specific character in a single film, Now You See Me. The Notes section is irrelevant, pointless OR. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN, being covered in sources such as The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy and The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – WP:LC items 1, 2, 6, and 7 apply. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's indiscriminate, has been for some 12 years, and likely to remain that way without constant vigilance. I note that this list was created as an attempt to clean up another article; that's a terrible motivation because it just relocates the problem.~TPW 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but only the notable ones, i.e. with articles. And magicians/sorcerers/wizards/enchanters only need apply. Witches belong in List of fictional witches; Chun the Unavoidable is not identified as a magician; Hecate is a goddess; whatever Lilith is, she's not a magician; Jezebel???; etc. (If this is deleted, then also delete the fictional witches and List of magicians in film.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely indiscriminate list, as User:Clarityfiend points out the question of "what is a magician" is almost as fuzzy as "what is fantasy (fiction)". One might be able to come up with a definition that results in a more focused list, but this is WP:TNT stuff.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Keep. sufficient coverage has been demonstrated above; I am not sure whether it should be onely ones with individual articles, or should include major figures in works that themselves have articles, but that can be discused at the talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's no possible way this article could not be a pointless trivia magnet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:55, 20 March 2018 (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.