Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginny Weasley (character)


 * 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. Concerns from importing an offsite article are appreciated, but the article is quite extensive, reasonable well cited to primary sources, and it has been demonstrated that independent reliable coverage which can be used to expand and verify the article exists. Skomorokh 15:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ginny Weasley (character)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Character already covered in Dumbledore's Army. Jujutacular talkcontribs 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Note to closing admin A primary concern here is that this article is a copy and paste from the Harry Potter wikia with a few edits since the transfer, and as such, is completely incompatible with our guidelines for articles about fiction. Jujutacular talkcontribs 03:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - character has notable existence and effect on story beyond membership in the DA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per previous discussion at Talk:Ginny_Weasley - there haven't been any major changes in the character since then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep after all. The merge discussion above was minimal -- there's plenty of in-universe material to flesh out an article, and I'm sure there's sourcing out there to include real-world impact. Again, listing her as merely as part of "Dumbledore's Army" does not make sense.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly because the current content appears to be a straight copy-and-paste from Wikia's Harry Potter wiki and is written in an in-universe style incompatible with our guidelines. No comment on whether or not a split would be okay - she seems like a borderline case to me - but that's not an AfD issue. BryanG (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I knew this came from somewhere. I was looking at old revisions of articles. Jujutacular talkcontribs 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy redirect to Dumbledore's Army. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note Ginny Weasley is already a redirect to Dumbledore's Army, no point in having another title to illustrate that this is a character, given that there aren't any other by this name. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dumbledore's Army. I actually think this character does warrant her own individual page, but not of the in-universe Wikia-style form it's in now. I say redirect it to the Dumbledore's Army page so that the content can be restored, and if somebody in the future can write a more Wikipedia-appropriate stand alone page about Ginny, we can go from there... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  21:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The entire page was copied over from harrypotter.wikia two days ago, and we can't retroactively credit. Moreover, not a single source is from a reliable third-party - everything is, like the article, decidedly in-universe an inappropriate for Wikipedia.  I say delete and not redirect because the presence of the "(character)" in the title makes it an unlikely search. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 22:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it back. There's a link to imbd which constitutes OR. :P ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 22:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unmistakably notable as a significant character in the major fictional series of the decade. I find it hard to believe this nomination. I find it hard to believe that a merge was ever considered. This is one of the exceptional fictions where all the non-trivial  characters (also definable as all characters with a role in the action) are appropriate for separate articles. Considering the remarkably minor characters where separate articles get defended, trying to delete this one shows a lack of judgment. Compromise requires judgment about what to compromise.  If someone wants to improve the article, this does not take deletion. What;s the problem with material from harrypotter.wikia-- isn't cc by sa   a compatible license? DGG (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself anyway, my main issue with this article is that it goes into way too much detail for a Wikipedia character bio, and it's all in-universe as well. Yes, harrypotter.wikia has a compatible license (in fact, I think we even have a template somewhere for Wikia attribution), but their standards are different than ours and it takes a lot more work to use it here than a straight text-dump. Honestly, I wouldn't really argue with a revert of the original merge of Ginny Weasley, particularly if someone added the real-world commentary that no doubt exists about her somewhere out there - the consensus for it wasn't all that impressive in the first place, and I'm led to believe she's a fairly important character. BryanG (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * you are probably right about the detail, but that's a question for editing. "In-universe" only applies to th etotality of Wikipedia coverage--when the aspects are broken out for a significant work, some will be entirely in-universe, some out-of-universe. DGG (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and because it appears to be copy/pasted directly from another site (the HP wikia). Perhaps use the link to redirect to Dumbledore's Army. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  03:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, If people want the merge with Dumbledore's Army reverted, take it to Talk:Ginny Weasley don't fork a new article on a different title chandler 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Undue weight to a minor character. Quotes and length give the impression that we are talking to a character more famous than Mickey Mouse. Moreover, this article is in fact a part of the book series summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important enough of a character to merit an article. Maybe a shorter article with some some third party analysis (which should be findable in reviews and the like), but an article. bd2412  T 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the comment above, she does deserve her own page to herself, as does SB, NL, McGonagall, and Looney... I mean, Luna Lovegood. Conay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment to some extent this is a matter of judgment: his series is not of the truly exceptional class of fiction where avery named character was notable, but it is of the next lower class of very important works where every character with a significant role in the action is. The level for just ordinarily very important works is where the principal characters are, and so on down.  The boundaries between the different classes are obviously open to discussion, but I would save the highest class for the truly major works of literature with permanent world-wide importance as classic masterpieces. HP isn't one of them yet, & I doubt it will ever be. If I had to give a clear example, it would be the Iliad. The next class is those that are the key iconic works of a period, or the major works of the most important Nobel-prize level writers.  I doubt Rowling will get a Nobel, but the series is the key iconic childrens/adult popular fiction of the present decade, just as Tolkien was earlier (though i personally think Tolkien greatly richer and subtler.)  The alternative to judging this way is to judge by the accident of available sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the thing is that, the way the article is right now, violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF, not to mention that it is copy/pasted from another site, which perhaps also violates some copyright policy. The current version of the article needs to be edited ASAP to some version that doesn't violate PLOT and WAF. However, if its subject doesn't manage to prove WP:Notability outside the Harry Potter series by adding real world content (i.e. coverage by a vast amount of reliable secondary sources or impact of the character in popular culture), then it doesn't deserve more than the existing section in Dumbledore's Army, which already covers the plot appearances of the character. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. One of the more major characters in the Harry Potter series in nearly every book since the second. over 700 google news hits, over 500,000 google hits, multiple references in scholarly articles, must I go on?  Malinaccier ( talk ) 03:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Not a minor character. Cannot be merged.  This article needs to be stripped of all non-Wikipedia content and written from scratch - perhaps based on the Ginny Weasley portion of the DA article ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:44, 5 August 2009 (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.