Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object-oriented magick


 * 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, Snow close. ^demon[omg plz] 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Object-oriented magick

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article fails Wikipedia:No original research. Zero Ghits. Speedy tag and prod removed by creator without discussion and without attempting to address this issue. Dethme0w (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a complete newbie at this. I am trying to flesh out the article but whenever I save a few sentences I am having the computer try to delete it! How do I get this set aside so I can finish it properly? Alephhermetic (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The "computer" is not trying to delete your article. The Wikipedia community is now discussing whether your article meets our notability guidelines and our requirements for independent and credible sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only hits for the term are the article. Original research, WP:SOAPBOXing, and probably conflict of interest issues as well. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article history, contribs of the creator, and lack of external citations speak for themselves. Alvis (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. as above Anshuk (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:NFT, term was obviously made up by author -- the lack of sources/GHits is the most damning evidence. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and add duplicate article Object-Oriented Magick to AfD. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is something interesting going on here: the notion that fuzzy slogans like "object oriented" carry social prestige among some subset of contemporary mages is an interesting phenomenon, from a anthropological standpoint.  But until the phenomenon gets wider credit, other than a single internet essay, it is not yet ready to support an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is actually a relatively long-standing "tradition" within Post-WWII magical and occult societies: Chaos magic is a prime example. The article on Magical thinking delves into some of the root causes, but I quite agree that this particular attempt at co-opting computer science terminology for magic is not suitable for WP. Justin Eiler (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Makes no sense at all. WP:BOLLOCKS. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is made up, possibly soapboxing, and I can't find reliable sources on its existence  Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black Hole Strange Frequencies 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. I tagged this for speedy under G4. This is a recreated page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've declined SPEEDY because it's been deleted before "through speedy", but G4 states "through the XfD process". Let this run it's course - though we're definitely close to WP:SNOW. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fairly obviously original research --BrucePodger (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its an exact copy of the original and I agreed with its original delete. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the single source used appears to not exist, I followed the link. However, I would like to point out that the article makes sense though it would need a lot of work if this did show up signficantly elsewhere.  However, it does show up though unexplained here, here, and here; and applies to something unrelated here, here, here, and in many other places if you search for object-oriented magic instead of magick.KV(Talk) 03:49, 16 March 2008 (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.