Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Magick

Magick
Unverifiable, non-textbook material. Kellen T 08:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People have received degrees in Magick from institutions such as Berkeley (not to say it was well received):
 * "He was going to be a psychology major, but through Berkeley's individual group-study program he fashioned his own course of studies. In 1970 he graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in magic, the only person to do so from a Western educational institution. He is the last to do so too, because the university administrators were so embarrassed over the publicity about the degree in magic, witchcraft and sorcery that they banned it from the individual group-study program."
 * http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/b/bonewits_p_e_i(ssac).html
 * So... ? --Remi0o 10:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The existence of one self-led course on a subject now banned from the same university hardly justifies this book. Kellen T 10:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll read through the text later this week, but I just want to mention that the subject of Magick itself is not inherently unverifiable, non-textbook, original research, or whatever. It can be studied from a reserved sociological and anthropological angle. Consider scanning over some of Chapter 4 of Outline of a General Theory of Magic by the French sociologists Marcel Mauss and Henri Hubert located here. What text I saw, however, in the wikibook, doesn't look like that pdf. I'll check later tho. Cheers, Iamunknown 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that there could be a textbook about magick in the historical, sociological or anthropological sense. But this is one that purports to be a textbook on the practice of Magick and is therefore not suitable for wikibooks. Kellen T 11:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have a tendency to jump in rather quickly so I've left this one a while! However Delete is my vote.  The content is questionable however my main reason is that I believe I would have been justified in placing a "qr-em" tag on this.  It is essentially a collection of redlinks with a small amount of content and has stayed that way for over two weeks now. -- Herby  talk thyme 10:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Having considered several factors, I have take it upon myself to edit the book a bit. I will try to add to it more, and also properly format it for Wikibooks. Please let me know how the book could be changed further to meet the specifications of a Wikibook. I suppose, however, if the book simply cannot meet the requirements of a Wikibook then it should be deleted, but I think that would be unfortunate. Hopefully, something can be worked out so the book can meet community standards. --Remi0o 11:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As with a wikipedia article, each fact presented in a wikibook must be cited from verifiable, reliable sources. I say this book could be about the history of magic beliefs, as documented in 'magic manuals' or whatever people use, and it could be on scientific investigation of magic beliefs, if any such investigations exist. I do not belive that it could ever be a how-to manual on magic while still conforming with verifiability. Kellen T 22:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks policy references NPOV, but doesn't seem to reference verifiability. Does Magick violate NPOV? --David Olsson 07:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly, as it asserts that magic produces any results. I don't think you can write a textbook on "how to do magic" that is actually neutral as the very premise is biased. Every page would need something notice like "magick is generally accepted to be fake/false/fraudulent." Kellen T 10:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To be acceptable for Wikibooks' standards this book really has to be transformed into a 'History of Magic'. It could also contain examples of the different practices associated with magic (whether historical or contemporary), but as it stands, this book is more of a how-to guide to something that is generally accepted as rubbish; and therefore does not meet Wikibook standards. I'd be prepared to let Remi0o have some time to restructure the book, deleting or rewording certain pages. Tommciver 09:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've had discussions with Remi0o along those lines myself (putting this "on hold" for a while as the the one at the top of the page at present. However as I understand it he feels he has done what he can.  I am left with the feeling there could be a valid book here but not perhaps as it stands -- Herby  talk thyme 09:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As the very topic itself goes deeply against some of my personal religious beliefs, I had to dig deep to come up with a fair vote. Honestly, it would be interesting to see something like this developed (as mentioned above) into a History of Magick......that would be valuable within a forum like this.  However, considering how long it's had (nearly) nothing done to it (development-wise), I'd have to vote Delete. Buddpaul 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to beat a dead horse, but this statement in the lead-in: "Magick may be a science..." No it can't be a science......it's metaphysical.......Protestantism is no more a science than a boiled egg is a piece of computer hardware.....and Magick is metaphysical.  Statements like that help me to stick by my Delete vote......[I'm done!]. Buddpaul 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This has about no content. --Sir James Paul 02:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above comments. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 13:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)