Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (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 was   no consensus to delete, default to keep..  Sandstein  16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of the Harry Potter stories
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete - A timeline of the popular book series. Sources are only primary and from unreliable fan pages, breaking WP:V and WP:RS. Some of the content is unsourced or original research (WP:OR) This belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia (WP:NOTWEBHOST). See also Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination) and Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter. Dalejenkins | 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article passed its previous AFD following a WP:DRV decision in favor of reversing the previous deletion (when it was called Dates in Harry Potter. I don't see anything that has changed to warrant a change. As the closing admin stated, sourceability is the key, and if there aren't already there will be additional sources created on this topic. I agree that WP:NOR needs to be maintained, but I do not agree that using primary sources suddenly equals OR, otherwise we may as well delete 99.99% of all film, TV and book articles on Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that original sources equals OR. And new sources are unlikely to be written on the Potter timeline as the book series is over and the film series is set in the 2000s, whereas the book series was in the 1990s. Dalejenkins | 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As far as the book vs film timeframe, perhaps a line can be added to specify this is for the books. As for "unlikely to be written" this is presumptive. Rowlings just did a high-profile lawsuit related to her plans to write just such a work, there are numerous third-party studies of Potter in publication, and this is one of the biggest selling series of books in the history of literature. People are still writing chronologies related to Tolkien's works, so there is nothing to say additional sources related to Potter won't also be written. Indeed there is nothing to say that Rowlings will never write another Potter book; indeed she is about to publish a spin-off work (Beedle the Bard) and has stated that she has not ruled out an 8th book down the line. But that's beside the point: the point is there are plenty of sources listed, and there are sources that may be yet to come. The article needs to be clear that it's related to the book, not film chronology (and films don't state they take place in the 2000s or the 1990s anyway), but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is full of holes. The references there are mostly primary, and those that aren't are from fan sites. This sort of article belongs on a fan page. This is pure WP:CRUFT. And "sources that may be yet to come" violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also, a 2005 track by The Ordinary Boys is used in the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix film, hence set in the 2000s. Dalejenkins | 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Well put-together, but pure fancruft. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I also favor deletion on this article, fancruft is not a valid deletion reason. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - while Harry Potter is notable, the Timeline/ Chronology of Harry Potter is not notable. Furthermore the article lacks independent sources and is mostly WP:OR --T-rex 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliably sourced article which is necessary for a full understanding of the events of the text (from an outsider-study point of view)
 * The article is meticulously sourced, and all dates given can be verified from the original text (e.g. the statement in HPCS about 1492 being 500 years ago, the statement in HPPS about the day on which July 31st fell) or the author's public statements (in interviews and the like). I fail to see how giving a date of the event in a fictional universe, and citing the original text or interviews given by the author of that text, is any different from using the date of an event in history (say the Battle of Hastings) and citing a non-fiction work as the source.
 * Primary sources are considered reliable (and therefore sufficient for reference requirements) to uncontroversial facts about themselves. For example a university's website is a reliable source for the statement that the university 'has X thousand students'. Surely, for the assertion that a particular event in the Harry Potter fictional universe is set in a particular year, the actual text itself or the word of its author is sufficient? How could any third-party source provide more concrete evidence of this than the text and the author do?
 * Plenty of other articles (e.g. Lord of the Rings) discuss the in-universe times at which important events in the book take place - an understanding of chronology is essential for studying any book of this nature in which events occur over an extended period of time (including significant 'backstory' which is necessary to fully understand the text - as with LoTR in fact). The only difference I can see in this article is that the books are set (albeit vaguely) in real years (1991 - 1997) rather than fictional ones. Cynical (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference between this and the LOTR articles is that there isn't a large body of scholarship studying the Harry Potter series' setting in detail, nor was the series conceived as a fictional history, with great emphasis on continuity of setting and detail. Instead, where continuity exists it is continuity of motivation and events, not continuity of setting and timeline. Even the basic years aren't based on any source, but instead on adding and subtracting years based on known events (two years before three years after ten years before adds up to...) when the author herself says she got the math wrong several times. This article makes original claims, based on intepretation of a work of fiction instead of any reliable sources. Conflating "notable" with "important" doesn't solve the core problem that there are no sources for the conclusions, making this one big ol' original research POV-push that this is the timeline that the series falls into and bugger the inconsistencies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per cynical.Nrswanson (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think I need to repeat the full discussion above. For notable fictions of an degree of complication, timeline articles are notable. The interweaving of past events in the various vols. of the series fully justify the virtues of an article like this. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The whole article is trying to argue when the events of the story took place, in violation of WP:SYNTH. The only factual real-world statement is "The dates are inconsistant, and JKR has admitted she's poor in math." You don't need an article for that. Leave this for a fan wikia. – sgeureka t•c 07:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fairly hard core original research, plus this is yet another redundant arrangement of plot summary arranged in an in-universe way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Primary sources are obviously the best in this case. Ad hominem arguments about fans are irrelevant and do not justify deletion.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, independent third party sources are always best. If this article can not find any it should be deleted --T-rex 14:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that statement. If you talk with wikiprojects related to the arts and literature they will tell you that primay sources are often essetial sources used within articles. Particularly on newer or more obscure works where there is limmited critical commentary and/or detailed information available about the work in other sources. I myself write articles on Baroque operas, many of which haven't been performed in 300 years, and use the scores to get invaluable information on things like the names of characters, etc. that might not be covered in an article discussing the opera's impact on musical history. Third party sources are essential for proving notability but I don't think they are essential for every detail on an article's page. If that were the case than many articles on the arts would remain stubs.Nrswanson (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to say that primary sources are all-out BAD per-se, they're absolutely invaluable. However, you NEED secondary sources to back them up. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a plot summary of the Harry Potter books with some dates added on. 58K is far from a "concise" plot summary, and thus violates WP:NOT.  --Phirazo (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep. I'm not overenamoured of Harry Potter fandom, but, I can quite imagine this is the sort of information at least some people would come to Wikipedia to try and find... so I think this article is encyclopaedic.--S Marshall (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Kelso21 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why?--Phirazo (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's simply plot repetition from all the books. Looks like fancruft at best. It should be on a Harry Potter wiki, not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is merely a lengthy collection of fancrap plot summary rearranged into a timeline. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete has little to no reliable sources, is an exceptionally long plot summary, and is mostly original research. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per 23skidoo and DGG. It's an article based on the Harry Potter books so the books themselves are quite reliable and even those have been written about in other books also based on ...the original books. The only issue I see here is editors having to work through any disagreements and writing the entire article to avoid in universe concerns. Banj e  b oi   00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability and verifiability as well as the fiction policy extremely badly - even if the books themselves are notable, it doesn't mean this timeline is. It doesn't really matter if the article supports all its clear original research with a couple dozen cites of the books themselves and over thirty cites from just one of the many fansites used to source the article (that fansite, by the way, seems to be the basis for this article as it has a lot of content dedicated to hammering out a timeline like this one), because despite the considerable work obviously put into sourcing this article, the author was unable to find even a single relevant secondary source. It seems like a lot of people aren't well-versed on policy in this AfD, because you can source a series' content from itself all you want, but it's nothing more than fansite-level cruft until you can find secondary sources, otherwise you could put articles about anything fictional on Wikipedia without fear of it being deleted. Just because the books are notable and a few subjects from them are notable, by the way, doesn't mean a low-interest plot summary anyway. Also lacks significant real-world coverage, but at this point that's just another nail in the coffin. I suggest that people read WP:FICT as it covers pretty much all my arguements. Gelmax (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Notability (books) covers this - "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country". Banj e  b oi   23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about a book. WP:BK doesn't apply. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article does seem to be about the books - "the series of Harry Potter novels". Banj e  b oi   02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are the articles about the books. This article is about a timeline of events in a fictional universe. The applicable notability subpage would be WP:FICT, as Gelmax notes in his !vote. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then FICT would seem to cover it. Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that clause applies. As it notes, it's generally used for groups of characters and episodes, subtopics which taken on a whole may be notable in the context of the larger work, but would be cumbersome to cram into the main article. It's not used to justify separate articles for topics that otherwise don't meet inclusion criteria. I'm still not seeing any reliable secondary sources which discuss contradictions in the Harry Potter timeline to a substantial degree. Further, this article is plot summary (simply rearranged) which is already covered elsewhere, and the Basis and Contradiction sections read like OR synthesis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this as something that would fit in the main article were it not for size concerns. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The plot of the series is already covered in the book and movie articles in a format both more faithful to the original works and more consistent with WP:PLOT. The concept of this article still shows no notability and is largely OR. There is very little, if any, encyclopedic content in the article that is worthy of inclusion on any page. I do not think your statement is compatible with the policies of Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree then. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete purely original research. This is an compilation of facts and original analysis regarding books and movies.  An article like this should really only exist if there have been published timelines from reliable sources. --Leivick (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I supposed you could call it "cruft" but it's well-written and extremely notable cruft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, real-world notability is not inherited and it is not established by your just saying it is so. The non-third-party, non-truly secondary sources currently in the article (and as far as I can see, those are the best available) are insufficient to support that statement either. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If anything, it is a continuity-keeper of all the different plots. Already been kept in AfD once. Perhaps a policy on Timelines would be a good idea as well. Until then, there is MORE than enough reference material, as oft noted above, and it serves a particularly useful purpose. <small style="font:12px Matura MT Script Capitals">  Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  <small style="font:9px Arial Narrow">15:49, 15 Aug 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable and well-sourced. You might not like it, but Wikipedia does Fandom. Sourcing in-universe dates from the canon os just as good sourcing as taking baseball scores from the relevant league's yearbooks. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourcing in-universe dates by drawing debatable conclusions based on personal analysis of the fictional works is not good sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The timeline of a book/film series as popular and well-known as the Harry Potter series is almost always going to be notable. This is no exception. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this different from saying "The timeline of a book/film series [...] is almost never going to be notable, no exceptions"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I left out a couple of adjectives that I had meant to include in my reasoning. They've been included now. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then where are the reliable sources that saw fit to comment on this subject? Notable isn't the same as important or popular. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you actually suggesting that the Harry Potter series is popular but not notable? You don't think that there exist reliable sources covering some of the plot points, do you? Also, I'm not sure that you understand what WP:ILIKEIT means. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting that not every aspect of the series is notable. You've conflated this particular aspect of the series with the whole series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're trying to make a distinction between the notability of the series and the notability of the chronology, but my point is that there are enough reliable sources discussing certain aspects of the subject that make the subject notable. And, by the way, in a quick google search I was able to turn up this. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are those reliable sources? This mentions no dates and does not place flashbacks or mentioned-in-passing historical events in any sort of order; it only summarizes the books, chapter by chapter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere...agree to disagree, I guess. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's going nowhere because you're making sweeping general statements in response to a single, specific question. Unless and until there are reliable sources that saw fit to comment on this subject, it's just not notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's going nowhere because your constant hounding of me is growing tiresome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article lacks of the independent sources necessary for WP:Verifiability. Almost all references are from the books or fan sites. Most importantly, it also lacks of notability, as there seem to be little, if any, coverage of the topic by reliable sources (the topic being the contradictions in the chronology of Harry Potter, not Harry Potter itself). Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- Fairly blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also poorly sourced and of dubious notability. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  05:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG, and per author Rowling's and copyright owner Warner's creations of and acknowledgements of the timeline. Events in the books are not "dateless", and it is not O.R. to deduce that the 500th anniversary of a 1492 event would fall in 1992. Other dates are from documents created by Rowling and from interviews by her. This satisfies WP:V, and it is material closely related to a highly notable book series which would make the main articles on the books excessivly long if incorporated there. Edison (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked for sock-puppeting. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,Arial,Tahoma;">Dalejenkins | 10:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A continuity-keeper of all the different plots...in other words, a plot summary. Twisting the words doesn't change that. And there's plenty of references, true, but quality is more important than quantity. All that's referenced is primary sources and fansites (which, of course, aren't reliable sources). If you look at the original research policy, it clearly says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors", which this isn't, because there aren't any secondary sources describing the chronology of Harry Potter events. Just Rowling's vast expanse of primary-source writings in the Harry Potter universe, and fansites that are technically secondary sources but aren't reliable ones. And no, there isn't any need for a special category for timelines, because there's plenty of timelines that would survive under the existing rules. I know the Lord of the Rings universe has enough reliable secondary sources to support a timeline article, I think the Star Trek universe does, Star Wars might (don't think so, though), Pokemon should, it's just that Harry Potter doesn't. What it all comes down to is that it isn't really Wikipedia's job to reconcile the various plot threads of the Potter universe, and saying that policy should be rewritten to accomodate it isn't a convincing point in an AfD. Gelmax (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a difference between OR and simple addition and subtraction, and this falls well in the realm of the latter.  Besides that, there is the obvious fact that it is a collection of extremely notable elements from a notable series.  Combined with the author's own acknowledgement of the timelines, I don't see how this doesn't pass verifiability by any standard.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the method used to produce the original research is straightforward, easy, and nearly impossible to screw up doesn't make it correct or reliable, especially when your only source is "any time Rowling wrote the word 'year'". Just because a date's alluded to in the canon doesn't mean it can't be retconned by a later work or isn't contradictory or just flat out wrong. Maybe someone tells Harry that something's going to happen on such and such a date and then it ends up happening earlier but it's not explicitly mentioned in the book. Bam, the canon isn't explicitly wrong but the OR is. Heck, I even found an example of this in the Harry Potter universe after less than two minutes of browsing through the fansite "sources". This is why OR is not reliable. Gelmax (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The OR lies in the construction of an entire topic. Were there third-party sources to establish so much as the mere existence of that timeline as a real-world fact, I'd consider keeping this. But as it is, the very topic of this article is the product of some Wikipedia editors' work. Not good. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as hopelessly in-universe and OR. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 01:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources such as Waco Tribune-Herald and The Harry Potter Companion (containing a 52-page chapter on the timeline of events). It is stretching far beyond the intent of the original research policy to suggest we can't ever synthesize information from multiple sources; synthesis is only becomes original research if editors are trying to advance a position. As long as we present information in a neutral way based on the information we can derive from sources (including information derived from sources and simple arithmetical computations, which any editor can reliably verify and confirm), we do not run afoul of the prohibition on original research. Where sources agree about where events belong in the Harry Potter timeline, they can unequivocally be put in their proper place in this article. Where they don't, NPOV can be applied and the events can be listed separately from the main chronology, indicating where the different sources place them, or footnotes can indicate where sources conflict with the timeline. There are enough reliable sources to improve this article without necessitating original research, and so it should not be deleted. It is also looking into a crystal ball to suggest that articles would be original research because later "official" sources may conflict with the current sources available. For example, 2012 Summer Olympics won't become "original research" if war breaks out and the Olympics are cancelled; the article would simply need to be updated as new sources become available. DHowell (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (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.