Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magocracy

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 Keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magocracy

Magocracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable neogolism. Article fails WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world significance. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• An area where we do seem to fail in guidance coverage is activities which have grown up outside of the traditional reliable sources network. Magocracy gets mentions in a number of places [1], though - without searching through them, none seem conventionally "reliable". If those involved in D&D were readers of The Guardian there would likely be the reliable sources needed for this article. That those involved in D&D worldwide almost certainly outnumber the total readership of The Guardian doesn't count in Wiki guidelines. (Oh! This is strange - my first search for Magocracy produced 44,000 hits, then I searched again and got 650, then again and I get 9,500!) Anyway, do we deal with it on Wiki, or do we let the well established D&D world deal with it themselves? Working within existing guidelines I'd agree with the nom, though I'd suggest a merge and redirect to an appropriate article within the Dungeons & Dragons cat or Fantasy role-playing games cat. An article on governments would be good, but I couldn't see one. If no appropriate article can be found, then delete. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Changed to Keep with reference to The Golden Bough and LtPowers comments. There is scope for this article to develop in interesting ways. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I think you might be confusing Ghits with notability. Magocracy is not a term that is listed in any dictionary, but was created as part of a role-playing game, which has extensive coverage on lots of fansites. These sources cannot be considered to be reliable secondary sources, because fansites are a form of self-publication. My argument here is that the term Magocracy has no significance outside of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise, i.e. it has no real-world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. There has been a move on Wiki for accepting certain sources - such as internet forums and blogs. When redrafting WP:Bio I created a section "Specific examples of sources" and put in the sentence "Widespread and sustained coverage on the internet, resulting in demonstrable wide name recognition on several significant internet forums and blogs". However, it was felt that the wording was too soon. My feeling is that we increasingly need to have a further discussion on this topic. Until we get agreement that wide coverage on internet forums and blogs is an acceptable source then we have to follow existing guidelines, and so this article fails - but if we had that wording then articles like this and others on street artists, etc might struggle a little less on AfD. I hope that is clearer - if not, we can continue this conversation on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment You are mistaken; there is no established move to accept anything other than WP:RS as the guidance note on evidence of notabilty.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also mistaken is the notion that this term is exclusive to Dungeons & Dragons. The term has been used in other role-playing games. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (even though I find the article hilarious!). This is not notable in the real world. At best, these mages may use their powers to get a girlfriend other than an Amazon Warrior Princess. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Your comment here made me laugh, Jack Merridew. Rray (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  It helps to lighten things up a bit. --Jack Merridew 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, it should be thaumocracy :-). Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Thaumatocracy, rather. The notion means "government by mages", not "government by magic". There is a significant difference: while magic does not really exist, magicians did for most of history, and still do. Whether they are effective at what they do is beside the point. Still, the term magocracy is the one in popular use, as a Google search shows; thaumatocracy would be a neologism. Freederick (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sensiblekid (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The topic has real-world significance and I have added a citation for this. The article currently emphasises the D&D aspects but has already made some effort to cover other works such as Star Wars and the Wizard of Oz. Some more cleanup might be done to cover other fantasies such as the works of Jack Vance but this is not a reason to delete. The title of the article is debatable but the word seems an obvious coinage for the concept and seems to have usage outside of D&D: Google books. And the title can be changed without deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment the source your provided does not mention Magocracy at all. Please address the issue of negolism, rather than sidestepping the issue.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  I did address it. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  I see no evidence of this in the source you added to the article[2]. The term Magocracy is not used at all, unless I am mistaken.--Gavin Collins (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  The source discusses the topic. The title that we give to this topic is not especially important for this discussion because the article can be readily renamed. I made a similar point above so your hectoring is redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I think you may be confusing the world of fiction with the real world. The term Magocracy is a term used in fiction, but there are no reliable sources to suggest it has been used outside the genre of role-playing games. As regards the real world use, there is no primary source that provides evidence it has been used at all. The source you have provided suggests that wizards and mages have been rulers, but there it provides no evidence that permanent order of governance has ever been created based on the assertion that magic can be used to control the natural world. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Colonel Warden. "Real-world significance" seems adequately established in that this is a concept with at least some currency; as is pointed out, this is an "obvious coinage." Not sure what "plot summary" is included in the article I read. Societies governed by magicians or wizards are a recurring theme in fiction: the concept could support an article, and this title is a good place for such an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. That a form of government is necessarily fictional is not by itself evidence that it's not notable. It certainly does have some cultural relevance, as it is a form of government often found in fictional settings that contain magic-users. It also has some real-world political relevance, as societies have in the past been ruled by people who were though to be magic-users, even if they were not in reality. Obviously, the article needs expansion and more sourcing, but it's not inherently unnotable. Powers ^T 15:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I disagree that this article has "real-world significance" nor is it obvious that it is inherently notable because it is a form of government as it is a neogolism that has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate your assertions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  I neither used the phrase you quoted, nor claimed that the topic is inherently notable. I also did not claim the current title was not a neologism. Powers ^T 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Magic is still a potent force in the real world. See today's news. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sources can easily be found for this article's subject. Powers makes a good point that being fictional does not equate to being non-notable. Rray (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep Comment - I want to say keep because I know that it is a used terminology that is sourced. I want to say delete because we will be opening the door to anythingocracy. Will we then acknowledge F___ocracy or DumbF___ocracy? But that is probably not the case and would be each viewed for their merits. Changed my mind to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete neogolism. Has no real world relevance nor notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  comment I find it remarkably curious that you are using not only the same buzzwords as the nominator, but the same unusual misspelling as well. Communion of minds? Freederick (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, while I am perhaps not allowed to cast a vote as I prefer not to be logged in, I'd suggest that the contents (in a trimmed form) be put in an article dealing with fictional forms of government or such. Thus there would be a little home for hive societies,wizard states and whatnot (while real world examples are colourful enough). 88.148.206.233 (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article appears sourced. Catchpole (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a legitimate, sourced article. The arguments against it tend to cluster around the fallacious notion "magic does not exist in the real world, therefore magocracy can have no real-world notability". Actually, it is not necessary for magic to work in order for magocracy to exist; it is only necessary for a group of people to believe it works, which was the case through most of history. The reference to The Golden Bough underscores that point. Once you abandon the fallacy, there are no serious reasons for trashing the article: it is referenced, and the breadth of the references clearly demonstrates sufficient notability. I would like to see some more reference to real-world phenomena like the Hittite magic-ritual-performing rulers, the druids, the actual passages in The Golden Bough, etc., but it seems these references are in the process of being supplied. Even outside of historical context, the fictional appearance of this government form in such influential books as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or the Earthsea series guarantees sufficient notability. The article needs more work to expand its scope beyond game connotations, but is definitely a keeper. Freederick (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep thugh I would not have thought so until i actually read the article--and Freederick's explanation. This sort of article is one of the major justifications for building an encyclopedia based on community input. DGG (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sorry, one less-than-notable source for the term isn't enough to justify this neologism's inclusion in the encyclopedia. Majoreditor (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Query. If, as many of those who are recommending delete contend, the issue is that "magocracy" is a neologism, does that mean that we are in agreement that the concept itself is notable, just not the word used to describe it? If so, then shouldn't this be a rename discussion on the talk page instead of a deletion discussion? Powers ^T 13:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Feel free to userfy if you wish, but it reads like a synthesis or ideas brought togother to push a point of view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  I, for one, considered the content, not the title. If folks want an article on a political concept, fine, but this isn't it. This is D&D-cruft mapping itself onto the real world. Look at the categories it is in, the repeated D&D references. Said political article would use a different title and different content and so has nothing to do with this. --Jack Merridew 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete nn per WP:NEO Mayalld (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Being a neologism isn't a criteria for deletion unless it's an article about a neologism where reliable sources can't be found to demonstrate notability. So the many "Delete" comments which cite nothing more than the word being a neologism should hold little weight in the closing of this AfD. Rray (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I said that it was a non notable neologism (per WP:NEO), not merely that it is a neologism, and as such it should be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The article includes multiple references to reliable sources which indicate notability. Rray (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • comment The article includes sources which use the term, not sources which discuss the term. WP:NEO requires sources which discuss the term to prove notability. Mayalld (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • If the problem is the name, that can be changed. The article is not about the term, so we don't need sources that discuss the term. The article is about the concept. Powers ^T 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seemingly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• How so? The article includes multiple references to reliable sources, which is usally a clear indication of notability. Rray (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's certainly a neologism, having been coined in the 1970s. But, given its broad usage in the gaming sphere, it is arguably notable. That said, most of the cited examples in the article strike me as original research. However, insisting that real world examples be found or the article must be axed seems a bit unfair; there aren't any real world examples unless you count certain theocracies. My suggestion is to transwiki the word to the Wiktionary, define it, and provide a brief etymology. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• !vote, but comment I honestly don't think the notability of the topic is questionable. The book by Sir James George Frazer is apparently very well known and he has a whole chapter on this idea in his most famous book. It also seems that the notion shows up in the oddest places. That said, the article itself feels largely like original research and I'd personally remove the D&D references as being largely irrelevant (not to mention causing the ire of Galvin and Jack). I'd vote keep, but I'm not sure how to tie Frazer's work into LeGuin and Oz without it being original research. If someone can manage it, more power to them.

• OK, as I wrote that I did some further searching. This would seem to relate Frazer and LeGuin. As would this paper (see page 64) So keep but needs a major rewrite Hobit (talk) 01:54, 17 January 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.