Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Harry Potter fanfiction. Vast majority of references are to chapters of said fanfiction. Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the plot summary may need to be cut, this fan fiction work has received attention (cited in this article) from Vice (magazine), the Hindustan Times, and the Washington Post-affiliated blog The Volokh Conspiracy. HPMOR seems to be well more notable than the typical fan fiction work. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and trim plot I agree with Metropolitan90 (and 's comment on the article's talk page). GojiBarry (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:GNG, it's received lengthy coverage by at least three independent reliable sources (Vice, WP, The Atlantic).  K . Bog  20:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's the most RS-covered fanfic I can think of other than Fifty Shades. It's pretty clearly notable. That said, the plot isn't. I would cut the plot section entirely. I already said before on the talk page that the plot section was rambling fancruft, and it blatantly is. Let me note: none of the RSes even mention the plot. They talk about it as a story that brings science to Harry Potter, but there's two scientific experiments in the whole thing and they're both before chapter 30. The plot is not actually worth us covering - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep/Reduce - as per above; I support keeping the article, but the "Plot" section must be reduced to 1 paragraph. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's actually two now, but one explains the divergence - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The current version is much better now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable.  --Lockley (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not notable outside a small internet fandom and most of the refernces in secondary sources are either simply starts for longer thanks about the harry potter fandom or personal blogs.Zubin12 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2017 (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.