Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban magic

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 redirect to an yet to be determined article, if you think you found a proper article for redirection, please boldly do so. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban magic[edit]

Complete OR. I'm finding plenty of Ghits for the term, but all in relation to paganism, not books. Seems like the editor is trying to coin their own phrase. Redfarmer (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm in agreement, this sounds like something that the author made up one day to put a name to such novels. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one could make the argument that the few novels mentioned have a similarity of setting and genre, that's a far cry from it being a recognized subgenre of fantasy. It seems that the best definition that's been added so far is, "Like fantasy, but urban and with magic". Also, the article namechecks urban fiction as part of an attempt to assign relevance to itself; unfortunately, urban fiction has little to do with a geographical setting and a lot to do with the class and ethnicity of the characters (which aren't relevant to any of the Gaiman books, at least). I agree that the author of the article is trying to cobble together a term; just because no overarching name exists for the works mentioned doesn't mean its Wikipedia's job to coin one, though. Ig8887 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Contemporary fantasy, the established term. Urban fantasy is listed as a subgenre and would be a more exact redirection target, but I have lingering doubts about the WP:OR/WP:NEO state of the latter. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Contemporary fantasy or Urban fantasy, with a slight preference for the latter. I agree with the doubts of Serpent's Choice's about UF, but this would be a good opportunity to clean up and source that article. Goochelaar (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree that Contemporary fantasy or Urban fantasy would be appropriate. I read a lot of these books, but have never heard this particular term applied by any bookstore or publisher. Slavlin (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm uncomfortable with redirection, especially if this is WP:OR or WP:HOAX. If the creator created this term themselves one day, it doesn't deserve a redirect. I would be able to WP:AGF more if I hadn't already seen other articles by this editor in WP:AfD and WP:SPEEDY. Redfarmer (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nominator's GHit research, I've left a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism to see if any of them have any input on a more appropriate redirect target, or even a more appropriate article -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's a very brief, unsourced bit of fluff defining someone's pet name for one author's books (two authors are listed but I have strong suspicions the other was added to make it seem legitimate). Also, redirects are cheap - it's hardly an innovative name, and a lot of people might come up with it in school one day, so we may as well point them in the right direction. Kuronue | Talk 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.