Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. The arguments made for deletion are thorough, compelling and cogent. The arguments made for keeping signally and uniformly fail to address a single point the deleters make. One of them even agrees on one of the substantive points! For the votecounters, even if I count every single vote, there's still well more than the two-thirds level and with any kind of commonplace treatment, it'd be higher still. -Splash talk 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Hogwarts
I’m renominating Battle of Hogwarts for deletion. I have stated most of these concerns on the talk page months ago but they have not been responded to. I’ll recap the highlights here.

First, I feel that a sufficient summary of the book exists on Muggles’ Guide to Harry Potter and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince as well as the Harry Potter Wiki which are the appropriate places for a book summary which literally tries to include every substantive detail. I believe that not only is the article name non-canonical but the framing of this part of the book as a "battle" constitutes POV original research, essentially providing a blank check for fans to add non-canonical analysis and interpretations of the text.

I'll refrain from calling it "Potter-cruft" (but it is You-Know-What). In the first vote, the result was no consensus; the key vote there was Guettarda who felt that the material belonged on wikipedia even if the article didn't. As I've stated above, the content is on wikipedia in other appropriate places.

There are three main arguments against deletion. The first is precenent: Battle of Endor, Battle of the Pelennor Fields, as well as Battle of the Windmill all have articles, and the last article is a non-canonical name. I am fine with all of these articles, but I would like to point out that the key distinction is that the Battle of the Windmill is canonically agreed to as a battle even if there is no definite name for it. That is clearly not the case with the Battle of Hogwarts. There is just as much justificaiton for making the end of HBP a battle as for making Battle of Home Alone for the end of the film Home Alone.

The second is that this is an important part of the plot. That may be true, but this is not the proper method of article forking. The proper process should be to put all the plot content in the main article for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Then, if there an overflow of notable plot details there the daughter article of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince plot should be created. However, the apparent community consensus judging by the first six books is that the main article should contain a shorter plot summary with a more detailed one in the Muggles' Guide.

The third argument is that this content is too long to be merged into the main article. That concern collapses into the second one which I have addressed above. However, I would like to add that part of the reason for the extreme length of this article is that the arbitrary format of a "battle" imposed on it. If this article were reduced to a mere plot summary, it would be shorter. And of course, even then, this would be an innapropriate method of content forking.

Please do not simply vote merge on this article unless you have read both articles and personally intent to merge the contests. Merges have been proposed in the past on multiple occasions but they are never followed through on and the merger notice is removed hourly by vandals. Savidan 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note Don't know wnough to vote on this but if, as the article itself says, "the series of events are never referred to as the 'Battle of Hogwarts' in the books", the title/concept would surely have to have achieved a lot of currency to be legitimate. Flapdragon 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with Flapdragon.  The Rabbit of Caerbannog from Monty Python and the Holy Grail is better known as the "Vorpal Bunny" (a name never mentioned in the film), because the name gained currency that way.  If everyone's calling it "The Battle of Hogwarts" even if the name isn't mentioned in the book, that's a sign that it's significant enough to become noteworthy on its own.  As for myself, I don't have a vote on it one way or another.--み使い Mitsukai 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'm a fan of the books too, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is definitely Pottercruft. Delete. If some more motivated soul than I cares to rewrite it and put it on the Harry Potter Wiki, they can go right ahead. And I never heard this name until I saw this article. H e rmione1980 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. One scene from one book of a long series. This can be sufficently covered in the article on the book. Gamaliel 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Avra deleta. Battle is such a strong word. Scuffle, maybe, or altercation. Call this a battle and you'd call closing time in Southampton a battle. Seriously though, non-canon name for one scene that  is covered elsewhere in wikipedia. Un-needed and unlooked for splitting. And back to Azkabam for me for using the unforgivable edit. Sabine&#39;s Sunbird 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. Seems like a good topic to me. JohnnyBGood
 * User's first edit &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And?
 * And it means that the closing admin will take into account that you magically appeared just in time for this AfD. Nothing more, nothing less. H e rmione1980 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good for them.
 * Delete cruft. The summary of this one scene is as a long as the entire plot summary on the HBP page. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an overdetailed plot summary under a title with no currency. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Corinthian 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per second paragraph of nomination. Barno 01:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Good article on a pivotal fictional event.Gateman1997 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Flip-flopper. Savidan 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to HBP. Plot summary is good, but this is absurd; if there's anything that needs saying in here, merge that into the main plot summary. If a reader really wants to know every single detail of what happens, they can read the book, for fnord's sake. Zetawoof 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A redirect isn't necessary for a non-canonical name. - Brendan OShea 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would support a redirect to deter recreation. Savidan 11:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. To call a plot element in the story "The Battle of Hogwarts" reeks of fanfiction. --Carnildo 05:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per extensive nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Slight merge or delete. If it's deleted, please replace with either deletedpage or a redirect. Stifle 16:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't have a problem with each book having its own page, or even with each major character having its own page, but things like the Knight Bus are really pushing it, and this article goes way over the line. Turnstep 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the HBP article. -Sean Curtin 06:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Integral to the series, at least in my opinion, but doesn't warrant a page. Marira 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just can't see an article for this material, though it is part of the book.   FloNight 20:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the HBP article is good enough for this topic, if anyone wants more in depth info then surely they can just read the book. --Jpowell 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper. This article contains significant information that is not contained within the HBP article.  I would cost a handful of bytes to retain this additional information on the plot of a book that is a significant part of popular culture.  I agree, however, that the non-canonical designation of it as a "Battle" is very suspect.  I would be very receptive to renaming the article to something less indicating original research or to merging this article with the HBP article.  (I don't directly commit myself to doing that, but merging would be greatly preferable to deletion). -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with SocratesJedi fully. 68.192.117.112 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IP votes? Savidan 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually discounted unless they add something compelling to the discussion. H e rmione1980 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if it's not called Battle of Hogwarts in the book, then this topic should be covered in the book article Ruby 01:36, 15 February 2006 (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.