Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Magicians' Club

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 and redirect. This seems the best option based on the comments about the references below. —Sean Whitton / 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Magicians' Club

This seems to be an non-notable organization. The refs provided are either primary sources or weak secondary ones. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, self substantiated, no reliable third party refs to establish notability. Mfield (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - to The Magic Circle. I'm fine with deletion, but since this group is sponsored by The Magic Circle, and that article does not mention this group, that is where it should go. I agree with Levine, in the absence of secondary sources there can be no article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge~~ - I found an article on the telegraph.co.uk website about the group, and added it as a citation into the text. I also removed the inline external links per WP:MOS, will keep looking for more refs - in it's current state it looks a contender for merging into Magic Circle, but not deletion. - Toon⁰⁵ 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) I added another ref from the Guardian website, so I'm changing to a plain "keep." - Toon⁰⁵ 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP At least three references appear on the page, all reliable, this WP:N cannot be used as valid criteria for deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 July 2008
You need to actually read those references. The second reference appears to be a reprinting of wikipedia's content and thus not usable as a reference. Notice the "Copyright wikipedia" at the bottom. The first reference is from an advice column, which makes it questionable and the subject of the article is not the subject of the advice column. It is mentioned in conjunction with several other items. The third source does give it coverage, but not title coverage and only sees fit to cover it in the context of Harry Potter and its parent organization the Magic Circle.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a good deal of formatting, copyediting and other work, but the subject has received coverage in WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't find the sources provide sufficient coverage. It is mentioned only in context with other subjects, and doesn't receive any headline attention above them. I've removed one invalid reference, which leaves a trivial mention in an advice column and another article which seems to only grant it coverage in the context of Harry Potter and its parent organization. It doesn't seem to have any presented independent notability. The article even mentions it only has 200 members, I would need some full articles about it to demonstrate it has any actual notability on its own.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Magic Circle, the reliable sourcing currently apparent appears limited and in both cases refers to the parent organisation. Neither article is long and the one in question will be significantly shorter when the POV issues are dealt, merging the article will give it's content a clearer context in which to be viewed. Guest9999 (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or sort of merge maybe. Completely lacks notability outside of the context of the primary organization (even in the provided sources), which is low on the notability scale itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal of the content as its own article, either by outright deletion or as a merge and redirect to The Magic Circle. While the sources in question do mention the organization, it is often in relation to either its parent organization, or some other context which does not grant this organization notability that is independent of The Magic Circle. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest keeping the article as it makes available information that is correct and useful to young people interested in becoming magicians. The information is accurate and up-to-date. I've also added a large number of links to verify the organization's notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetmagic (talk • contribs)

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.