Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood purity


 * 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 keep `'mikka 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blood purity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

100% original essay on blood purity in Harry Potter world. It is high time to clean all fancruft from abound in this kind of cruft. Any volunteers to start a WikiProject NOR-FAN? `'mikka 18:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all its ilk. Maybe the Conservapedia whackos independently minded users have a point - what the hell does it say about Wikipedia when an article on a trivial aspect of a series of kids' books is twice the length of the article on Gospel of Luke? -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really a fair comparison; most of the actual information we have on the Gospel of Luke is located in other articles linked from the "Content" section. This makes sense because all three synoptic gospels have a majority of their material in common. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It says that people are more apt to write about and make good articles about current fiction rather fiction from 2,000 years ago. John Reaves (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice as pure fancruft OR. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 21:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any cited portions into individual character articles. By the way, if this is deleted, it's going to leave a lot of dud redirects and redlinks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. We don't need the fancruft in the encyclopaedia. Parts that are cited can be transferred to another Harry Potter article. A le_Jrb talk  22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above; it's not exactly original research, though I do agree it's fancruft that may be unnecessary. A lot of work has gone into it, however, and it'd be a shame to see it wasted.  Madman bum and angel 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although poorly cited, it is certainly not 'fancruft': the issue is a central theme to Rowling's novels, and the article describes how and why that is so, and the features and effects of that in the novels. Moreover, I have to say I find the nominator's remarks, and those of User:Iridescenti, remarkably offensive: wikipedia has room for articles about novels, and claims that articles about the Bible should be longer than those on a novel, whilst good in principle, ignore the rather obvious point that fewer people write about the Bible than Harry Potter, and consequently the articles on subjects such as the former suffer as a result: Iridescenti, why don't you write more about the Gospel of Luke? Michael Sanders 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What constitutes Original Research, taken from WP:OR: "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material"(emphasis added) For information to be included here (on Wikipedia), it must be published elsewhere, in reliable sources, first. Just saying "I read it all in the books" doesn't cut it here. Wikipedia does have room for articles about novels but that doesn't mean we need an article about every idea in every novel. As this article doesn't seem to deal with the symbolism of the whole concept it isn't even an exceptionially good article about a novel. It appears to be mainly a collection of facts about the characters in the novels. Also, "fewer people write about the Bible"? I sure hope you are just referring to Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as an contemporary absolute, it is likely that more people currently write about Harry Potter than about the Bible - there are fewer fan-forums discussing whether John the Divine will kill off his hero in his next book, for example. Naturally, more people have written about the Bible, and more people currently write worthwhile reading about it than about HP; nonetheless, wikipedia is written by everyone, and, in this world, the collective everyone is at present more interested in and capable of writing fluently about the relevance of purity of heritage in the works of JK Rowling than of St Paul. More to the point, you appear to be contradicting yourself above: OR is unpublished or synthesised material; yet you also claim that material from the novels (in this case, the very epitome of non-OR) is not appropriate. I suggest that you, and anyone who believes the article contains OR, sweep through it applying labels; show us what you believe is OR, since quite obviously an article about one of the central issues of the novels is extremely relevant to the coverage of the novels by this encyclopaedia. Michael  Sanders 01:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material" This seems to be the majority of the article in question. While much of the article simply reports facts from the books: Lucius Malfoy is known to be a Death Eater. That is a fact that anyone can see by reading the respective book.When Bellatrix says "sons" it must be taken in context - in the scene her sister Narcissa weeps that her son Draco Malfoy has been given a terrible task by Voldemort. Bellatrix would likely make no distinction between a son or daughter, pressing either into Lord Voldemort's service. That would be considered original research by synthesis. This article seems to primarily base itself on primary sources (ie. the books). However, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians." Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 02:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and urge to tag with in-universe and trust the WP:WPHP to clean-up and cite. There's a difference, as Madman mentioned, between original research and what this article is. It is not, in the real world's definition, original research, but by Wikipedia's definition, it is, because, apparently, it is not referenced. Please note that not being referenced is not a reason to delete an article, if it can be referenced, and this article can be referenced through the use of various interviews with Rowling, the books, and a number of scholarly essays (I own a book with at least two, and there are probably loads more online). Consider that this article is not deletable material, but rather just in bad shape. Also, please do not go out of control with the fan-hatin' and the comparing-to-other-articles-which-you-deem-more-important, as usually happens in a Harry Potter AfD… just keep to Keep, Delete, or whatever, and leave the "überfancruftism" extremes out of it. :-) Just a friendly comment to keep things within reason here. Harry Potter has just a place as any in this encyclopedia, and sometimes articles can get a little carried away with text and a little lacking in references. We are trying to clean that up. Thank you. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to Blood purity (Harry Potter) to acknowledge that this article deals with the concept solely in the context of the H.P. universe. I recommend cutting everything from where the "Between both worlds" sections begin, since that is where the article begins to go off topic, reiterate other articles, or delve into original research. The first part of the article can and should be sourced. --Metropolitan90 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. dposse 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this could absolutely be properly sourced; there are more than enough published sources that could be brought to bear to source this article. There are literally dozens of books about Harry Potter out there, even some academic books and articles, and I guarantee some of them will discuss this aspect of the books. Chubbles 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Particularly important in understanding and discussing this series. A prevalent theme throughout and needs a central article. User:Dimadick
 * Keep - important concept of notable series. See WP:SS, WP:NOT. - Peregrine Fisher 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep quite a significant cncept within Harry Potter (part of a "larger topic"), article contains some sourcing and Wikipedia is not paper. It's an encyclopaedic topic - live with it. Matthew 15:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As it seems this is going to be kept, I must bring up another point that I said earlier but was buried in another comment. The reason that this appears to be a "fan article" is because it reads like one. It simply describes a concept used throughout the series, making no reference, that I can find at least, to the literaty significance of said concept. It gives a ton of facts about the stories (way too many) without delving into the symbolism behind the concept. It just doesn't "look" encyclopedic. It looks like the kind of thing I would expect to find on a Harry Potter fansite, not in an encyclopedia. As it stands, this isn't an article about a theme but about a simple idea used in the books. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To z-man: okay then, instead of demanding it be deleted here, raise the issue on the article talk page, show what you think needs changing, help make it a better article. That would be far more beneficial to wikipedia than simply demanding it be deleted. Michael Sanders 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen a number of parallels to genocide and racism in reliable sources. I'll look through this essay book I have tonight. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with above users that feel the article should be kept. I think that this is an important article, and contains a lot of quality information that is very relavant to the Harry Potter series. Perhaps some cleanup, and the addition of sources would make this article seem more encyclopedic. Greenboxed 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with remorse Superbly well written article, great information... just all-around something I'd love to see here. WP:OR is the problem. I think perhaps that policy needs some revision so we don't lose great things like this, but perhaps this will be a great point for that (as opposed to WP:POINT). It should also at least be moved to "Blood Purity (Harry Potter)" as Royal Family blood purity is a real world kind of topic that this name could apply to. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to WP:WAF? Bringing that oft-forgotten guideline into focus, and latent application, this article would (in my opinion) fall apart. Grace notes <sup style="color:#960;">T  § 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Those in favor of deletion are struggling to make relevant points, even stating what a good article this is without offering valid reasons for deletion. Some of the people endorsing deletion are also suggesting that it needs OR in it through the addition of literary analysis and analyzing the symbolism. Take one side or take the other, make up your mind. People seems to be saying "delete" because they feel some obligation follow the other lemmings. Clearly a bad-faith nomination in regard to the "fan cruft" (i.e. I don't like/can't understand this, so delete it).John Reaves (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it is one of the *major* themes of the HP series. Really, basically the whole second book revolves around this theme (the villain plans to get rid of all Hogwarts students whose blood isn't pure enough) and it is followed on in books 4-6 (where the villain and his henchmen commit further attacks on those, they consider non pure). Besides, the Gospel of Luke has absolutely nothing to do with this article. If people are unhappy with the later article's length, they can make it longer and more detailed. Deleting an article about a completely unrelated issue, is completely besides the point. But I agree to change the title into Blood Purity (Harry Potter).Neville Longbottom 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please get yourselves familiar with the policy "no original research". Just like you cannot simply write in wikipedia what you see in real world, once equally cannot describe any "imaginary world" beyound plot summary: any drawing of conclusions (including the opinion that this is the "major" theme) by wikipedians is expressly disallowed. `'mikka 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not drawing of conclusions. It is stated by several characters in course of the books. Both Dumbledore and Hagrid mention this in CoS, Arthur Weasley during the Quidditch Worldcup in GoF and Sirius Black mentions it in OotP. Not to mention, that the villainous characters (for example Draco Malfoy and Tom Riddle in book 2, as well as Bellatrix Lestrange and Walburga Black in book 5) state several times outright, that it is their aim to get rid of all the muggleborn wizards. The villains do not even lie about this! It is a theme of the book, and directly stated several times within the text! Neville Longbottom 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that the concept doesn't appear in the books. The problem is that many of the "facts" presented in the article don't; they are just constructed from real facts. I've put a list of things that need to be done on the article's talk page as well as assorted maintenance and "citation needed" tags on the article. Also, as it stands, this is not an article about a true literary theme but simply a plot device. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 22:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes, adding a few cituations as well as deleting some parts, which admittingly were indeed just speculation by whoever wrote them. It is not done, I have to search for a few of the quotes, but quite a few changes are already made. Neville Longbottom 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Auto et al. WP:OR is a core policy that cannot be overridden by consensus. This is completely a synthesis of primary sources, hence original research. Sandstein 09:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I quote WP:OR: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.. This article collects and organises information from the published primary sources, the books. It is therefore 'strongly encouraged'. It does not create a synthesis, which means to use sources to make an argument. It reflects the concept as presented in the books, and as Rowling has commented upon it. Sandpiper 09:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here "collecting and organizing" went over board, i.e., way beyond listing or making a table. Plenty of conclusions are drawn, hence it is a one big piece of original "fictional genealogy" research. `'mikka 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Slight overstatement there: there were undoubtedly a few conclusions drawn, but most of it was simply a summation of the situation in the books (and it has been given a good start at clean-up by one of the WP:WPHP members since then - as would have happened had Z-man's actions been performed by the original nominator). Where it was undoubtedly remiss was in a lack of non-novel references - a use of secondary source interpretations of the motif in the novels. Again, you suggest that on the talk page. You don't nominate it for deletion, which always brings out "I hate what you say, and your right to say it" mentality - particularly when the nominator takes such a repellently strident attitude. Michael Sanders 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The very first premise of the article "is divisible into three main classes by purity: pure-blood, half-blood, and Muggle-born." is a so OR. You seem to not understand this that some "few conclusions" may be the base of the article and being OR invalidate the whole rest. Ah, btw: "a few conclusions drawn" is a "slight understatement". The article is simply crammed with judgemental statements rather than statements of facts. `'mikka 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The very first premise of the article "is divisible into three main classes by purity: pure-blood, half-blood, and Muggle-born." is a so OR." Not anymore. It's a fact stated in the books and I edited the text, mentioning the book and chapter title, where it was siad. Neville Longbottom 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly why the article needs properly sourcing. And why editors who haven't read the books and are clearly less than fully informed about it should really watch what they say, in case they make foolish statements such as "The very first premise of the article "is divisible into three main classes by purity: pure-blood, half-blood, and Muggle-born." is a so OR." (it was never 'OR', since it is - repeatedly - mentioned in the books. It was, however, uncited). Pretty good evidence, it seems to me, that when an editor comes up against an article or a part of an article he thinks questionable, he should actually talk to the people who edit the article, instead of nominating it for deletion. Michael Sanders 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I admit this was my blunder, and posibly my nomination was misjudged, but this doesn't change the fact that the whole article reads as OR, especially in the view of the fact that the corresponding section in the HarryPotterWiki is far less elaborate. May I conclude that HPW-editors abandoned HPWiki and migrated to wikipedia together with their careless style? And I am still unconvinced that collecting a piece from here and a piece from there into a single coherent picture or the PotterWorld is not OR. Now, strike 2: "Some of the strongest proponents of blood purity are surprisingly not pure-blood themselves." 2.1: who says thate these "some" are "strongest proponents" and in which exactly words? 2.2. why "surprisingly"? Who says that Tom Marvolo Riddle is among these "some strongest proponents"? Strike 3: "By no means is pure-blood status a guarantee of a person's attitude." Who says this? In what words? `'mikka 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I went through the whole article looking for dubious statements. Feel free to do this yourself and pick out anything I missed with tags.  Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2.1 The books say this, because these some tried to kill Muggleborns, for the sole reason, that they are not pure. They outright admit, that this is their reason. The same is true for Tom Riddle. He is Voldemort, the main villain. We meet his parents via flashbacks in course of the series, and his father was a Muggle, therefore he's a Halfblood. Since he himself said, that it is his aim to clean the Wizarding World of the Muggleborns, he's one of the strongest proponents, in spite of not being Pureblood himself. That's simply a fact from the books, like "Harry Potter has a scar". Besides, in this very same paragraph, I added a link to an interview with author JK Rowling, who said, that she did this on purpose and that it is meant as a direct parallel to Hitler. ABout point 3. There are purebloods in the books, who are nice to Muggleborn. I gave several examples and added the book chapters, where these are found. Therefore being Pureblood is no guarantee for one's attitude. Neville Longbottom 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not even a fan of Harry Potter but I still found it encyclopedic. What, we're not allowed to have articles about popular culture on Wikipedia, just articles about Archimedes and zoology? Squidfryerchef 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Squidfryerchef, the argument for deletion wasn't that whole articles about Harry Potter were wrong (though one user compared its length to another article, which I personally don't feel is a valid argument), but that it wasn't sourced, could be original research and sounded too much like an essay than an encyclopedia article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are tags and templates for those things. Don't delete the entire article.  The "Archimedes" comment was a protest against deeming all pop-culture related articles as "fancruft". Squidfryerchef 05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, but I was just explaining the other side of things. :) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominator: "...this doesn't change the fact that the whole article reads as OR, especially in the view of the fact that the corresponding section in the HarryPotterWiki is far less elaborate. May I conclude that HPW-editors abandoned HPWiki and migrated to wikipedia together with their careless style?" First of all, it is merely your opinion that the whole article reads as OR, not a fact. Second of all, the condition of the HP-wiki article is irrelevant here, since it isn't wikipedia - I don't pretend to know how it works, so I can't explain any differences between that and this, but I expect there could be plenty of reasons why the articles would read differently. Thirdly, it's a bad idea to say this article measures up badly to a second article if you are making it clear you don't approve of that second article. Fourthly, it's a very bad idea to risk stirring anger by saying, "May I conclude that HPW-editors abandoned HPWiki and migrated to wikipedia together with their careless style?" What if there are HP-wiki editors here, quite serious and respectable editors both there and here, whom you have just insulted? Maybe you don't like Harry Potter, or WP:WPHP. That's fine. But "I don't like it" is not an appropriate attitude. Michael  Sanders 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I maintain that anything that goes beyond plot description and proceeds into various theories about a fictional world without secondary sources is original researh ad fancruft, and in a sloppy form, without adherence to wikipedia rules, which among other things makes it extremely difficult to judge the article even whether it is correct at all. You may play these games as long as you have sigificant support, but I am in opposition, period. If you outvote me, fine, I will not choke and die. `'mikka 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should point out that the HP wiki article was basically written by me, because one day I happened to notice that they had a stub or just a mess, so I wrote them one. Thank you for what I choose to construe as a compliment on its quality. However, the main reason it is relatively so much shorter is that it has only ever been edited by two editors. On the whole, Hp-wiki never got off the ground, because the coverage on wiki is frankly vastly superior, including this particular article. I consider the main difference between the two is that the article here includes greatly more detail, and that makes it better, not worse. No doubt statements have crept into it which can not properly be justified, as is the case with every single article on wiki. however, on the whole its content is sound and directly attributable to the books. Perhaps one of the critics of the article would care to spend the time required to read the sources and reference everything? Sandpiper 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to go through the article with a chainsaw first, before any further attempts at sourcing are made. The article has far too many examples for what it is about. The article is about the concept of blood purity, there is no need to go into great detail about each major family and then have a list of single characters as well. Most of this info could either be moved to a new article like List of Harry Potter families by purity (possibly unencyclopedic though) or, more preferably, just removed. I would suggest that everything up to and including section 2.2 is relevant. All of section 3 should be condensed into 1 paragraph per family maximum. Section 4 should be removed altogether, converted to prose, distributed into the rest of the article, or significantly trimmed. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting that rather than delete the article, it should be split and we should have two? I don't see the point. There is no reason why the actual examples of people in the various groups can't be in the same place as the explanation about them. This article is referred to by others where the concept comes up, and it makes sense to have all the examples here for ease of referencing. Sandpiper 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that this article is far too long. If WP:WPHP must keep all of this information somewhere, it shouldn't all be here. There is no reason to go into great detail about every family mentioned in the books. The article is about the concept. Articles should be comprehensive but should not go into unnecessary detail. I've listed a few examples of this on the article's talk page. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * reluctant delete. While I admire the devotion of Harry Potter fans and understand that wikipedia is not paper and some notable fictional worlds may be described just as a "real world", the absolute lack of reliable secondary sources means that absolutely every sentence must be sourced and often quoted. Sorry, I cannot accept the argument that "just read the book, it is all there". Comparing with the "real world" it is equivalent to saying: "just look out of the window and you see that there are trees with leaves and without leaves". The major reason to request secondary sources is peer review, which ensures that expert's opinion about world is correct, see my points in the discussion about the role of truth in wikipedia. In our case I have very little reason to believe that the text of the article is indeed a correct description of (fictional) facts and states only opinions expressed in the book. Because wikipedians are not trusted experts, by wikipedia rules. Mukadderat 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The rule about wikipedians not being experts means that we cannot apply our own analysis. Whereas, the problem everyone else seems to have with the article is that there wasn't enough analysis, because only the books hadn't been used. And nothing in your above point seems to be a reason to delete: but rather, points to bring up on the article talk page. You don't believe the article represents the facts as presented by the author? Okay, demonstrate what you think is wrong, and it can either be sourced or removed. Asking that it be deleted, however reluctantly, is not helpful. Michael Sanders 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The major problem is that the article is not simply a list of "facts". It is a whole sociological theory. Does the book discuss this theory as theory? As for being helpful, I promise if the article survives, I will do something useful. By the way, is the term "blood purity" discussed in the book as a theoretical term, not just casual usage of words "halfblood", "muggle", etc.? The last question means that making an abstract notion from several "facts" is definitely research. The question is whether it is done in the book, by persons of the fictional world, or by wikipedians. Mukadderat 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I understand the difficulty to come with professional secondary sources for such things. "Serious", books, such as Qu'ran, Bible, Gone with the Wind or War and Peace enjoy plenty of published literary criticism. I am sure the world of Harry Potter deserves its niche (due to its popularioty), but unfortunately I don't see how current wikipedia policies can handle this case in favor this article. The WP:NOR does say that "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." I am afraid in the case of this article, the burden of independent verification is just too big. It is not about 2-3 facts; it is the whole content. Mukadderat 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, even if erverything does get sourced, there is still the problem that much of the article is written as "in-universe" which is also to be avoided on Wikipedia. It starts off well, but as it progresses into the families, it begins to describe the characters as if they were/are real people, making less and less distinction between fact and fiction. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For an article to survive deletion, it is not necessary that it be sourced, merely that it is possible to source it, given some work put into it. In this particular case, no specialist knowledge is required to verify the claims. All that is needed is to read the books. this may take some time, since there are some 2500 pages, but it is well within the ability of anyone capable of posting here.  In-universe writing is also not a valid ground for deleting an article, whatever you may consider about it as a style of writing. I have to agree, that if you disagree with the reliablity of specific statements in the article, your proper course is to point this out where they appear, or indeed rewrite in what you consider proper form. The fact that some wizards consider themselves superior by virtue of 'pure blood' is indeed explained within the books by characters, and from memory, there are at least two set-to scenes where people have fights about it. In the green corner, the purebloods who support the idea, and in the red corner, other 'purebloods' presented by the author as 'enlightened', who oppose it. Rowling has also discussed the matter in interviews. Sandpiper 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per reasons above. Jakerforever 16:56, 11 April 2007 (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.