Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter Fan Zone


 * 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 as to whether the article meets the WP:WEB guidelines. All very unsatisfactory I'm sure, but such is AfD. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter Fan Zone

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

Seems to be a non-notable fan site. There is nothing here that satisfies WP:WEB.   Asenine   11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Chicago Tribune source simply lists the site as one of many. I agree, there's no indication that the site has WP:WEB notability compared to, say, the site currently being sued by Rowling because of that book. 23skidoo (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep given the information presented by PeaceNT. 23skidoo (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero indication that this "fan zone" is notable in any way, shape, or form.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:WEB. treelo  talk 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notability at all as per WP:WEB.--Lord Opeth (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Singu  larity  05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Relisted upon request.  Singu larity  05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not one of our garden-variety Harry Potter fansites. HPFZ has won the jkrowling fan site award in 2007 - source. This makes the website meets WP:WEB criterion 2 because (a) it's an independent award (given by book author - J.K.Rowling) and (b) it's an arguably notable award (winners are reported by the media e.g CTV Newsnet - source) Also, I think the site satisfies WP:WEB criterion 3 since its content was "selected for preservation by the National Library of Australia" - source (see also the Pandora archive). (Sorry for commenting late and for troubling the original closing admin forcing them into relisting ;))--PeaceNT (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the awards that PeaceNT found. I'm glad he thought of doing the work to find the information, and I wish the nom had actually checked, intead of nominating as "does not seem to be notable". DGG (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no substantial coverage, still fails WP:WEB as the JK Rowling is not a publication or organization. And it's not very notable, only getting a slight mention in that interview.--Otterathome (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think JK Rowling has no less reputation and credibility than any other organizations when it comes to judging Harry Potter-related content. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment G’day all. My name's Andy and I'm the founder of said "non-notable fan site". I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia protocol, but would like to offer my two cents in regards to why this website is in fact noteworthy. These are just my comments – if you still feel so strongly about the article's hasty removal, then so be it. Harry Potter Fan Zone received the J.K. Rowling fan site award in 2007 – one of only a handful that the author has given out (source). At the same time, the author answered questions from an open letter we at the site wrote on her official website (source). As mentioned above, the site was approached for inclusion by the National Library of Australia where it is now regularly archived (source). In terms of mentions by a "reputable publication", both the site and I were profiled in the Canberra Times in February of 2007. You may or may not be aware that Canberra is the capital city of Australia, and the Canberra Times its main publication. The article was featured on the front-page. A copy of the article was available at the paper's website until literally days ago (what fantastic timing), but I have a copy archived on the fan site (source). Secondly, both the site and I were profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald in July of 2007 (source). This was the time of the launch of the seventh Harry Potter book. The site helped host a launch party at Dymocks' flagship store in Sydney (source), which received significant media coverage. The site has also been mentioned in passing or as a reference by ABC News (source) and various other publications, though I'm afraid I don't have source information for any of these minor mentions. We've also been invited by Warner Bros. to cover the red carpet premieres of the last three Harry Potter films, and were invited to a day-long media visit at Leavesden Studios earlier this year. I can provide links to coverage if necessary. Whilst I understand the article in question does not mention a number of these facts, a quick Google search would have revealed much of the above information. I therefore submit that the site is in fact notable and not just another run-of-the-mill fan website. If necessary, I would be happy to do a complete rewrite of the article to conform to whatever standards Wikipedia obviously demands.--AndyHPFZ (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (At least weak) keep per PeaceNT and AndyHPFZ and because I fear a little (unconscious) systematic bias against an Australian website (local Australian news are hard to get by for an American and all). It would probably be safer to add the sources and their encyclopedic content to the article. – sgeureka t•c 19:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability demonstrated by PeaceNT, and a bucket of thanks to him for putting in the elbow grease to dig those links up. Ford MF (talk) 21:58, 11 June 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.