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

Allin Kempthorne

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

I've AFD'd this, but actually I think it should be redirected to Wriggler (video game). There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject of this article. Sourcing is all tabloid news (The Mirror, The Sun, Metro) or passing mentions. Simply appearing on BGT (and not being recognised...) does not indicate notability. Simply being a bit-part actor in numerous films does not indicate notability. Additionally I have WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns here.

They wrote the ZX Spectrum game Wriggler together with their twin when they were at school, and this game is clearly notable, but nothing else they have done appears to be notable.

Also nominating The Vampires of Bloody Island for deletion (no need to redirect this), which is the film Allin Kempthorne created. The only coverage that could be found for this is blatantly promotional ("we were forced to bring forward the release of this film because of an email campaign that no-one but us is the source for existing") and from sources of dubious reliability. Simply being nominated for a Twitter Shorty Award does not indicate notability.

Similarly also Learning Hebrew for the same reasons.FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, and Video games. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, Television, Entertainment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, concurring per nom. IgelRM (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IgelRM@MimirIsSmart - Also redirect for the two films? Or delete? FOARP (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make sense to redirect film article to a game. I would say Delete but this combined AFD is a bit confusing. IgelRM (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom with WP:NPOV disputed and as for the the next one, since it exists, redirect to a suitable one since Allin's does meet neutrality and COI as suggested or keep if there are more sources. I will suggest we keep one worthy, I will work on it and find sourcs to redirect others to newly edited one per WP:ATD as one can argue WP:TOOSOON.
HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no mention of Wriggler anywhere in the article, or any sources for it, so it's not a legitimate redirect term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you criticizing that Kempthorne involvement in Wriggler isn't sourced well? IgelRM (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what @Ritchie333 is trying to say is that, since Wriggler isn't even mentioned in the current article on Kempthorne, it's a WP:ASTONISH issue for anyone looking for info on Kempthorne. I'm inclined to agree. Anyone who searches for "Allin Kempthorne" will still be able to find Wriggler (video game) in the search results, they just won't be automatically directed there. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but then I could just add a mention of Wriggler to the article now and defeat the argument? However, I'm fine with Delete as the game doesn't appear particularly relevant to the person's career. IgelRM (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because there are three articles under review, I think this needs more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions