Harry Potter was very distinct in that it got to the younger generation, and it did so by encouraging active engagement in the silly behavior. The only thing on your list like that is D and D, and that has not been as popular.
So my point is that I take the anti-Harry Potter position.
What’s very interesting is the tide of activists defending Harry Potter books for the past decade or more. It was a big controversy on talk shows twelve or fifteen years ago.
I’ve heard otherwise very sensible people defending Harry Potter, likely after being taken in by whatever it is that stirs the emotions so strongly about these books. Never saw anything like this emotional defensiveness about the other things on your list.
You think the Lord of the Rings which dealt heavily with magic was not at all influential?
You may take the anti-Harry Potter position all you like but the fact is that Harry Potter is as far away from wicca as you can get and still be dealing with magic.
The magic in the world of Harry Potter is a genetic. If you have the right genes you can use magic.
The magic in Waldo was energy from another dimension.
The magic in Lord of the Rings is learned and involves worship.
If you want to pin wicca on anyone you would have to go after JRR Tolkien.
Of course it was already flourishing before he was a gleam in his daddy's eye so that could be a problem.
I know you want to blame Hairy Trotter, the Colt who Lived but the evidence does not support your contention.
Kids were dressing up and playing at being wizards long before he cantered onto the stage.