Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter characters birthday list


 * 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 Delete. It appears all useful information has been alreadly brought over. Yank sox 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter characters birthday list
List and fancruft, totally unencyclopaedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Rory096 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT paper, but this is hardly 'indiscriminate' information and does not seem to fit any of the definitions listed at NOT. Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add that Michaelsanders has advertised this and another AfD here and here. --Rory096 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And is that a problem? if you look below you will see that while he asked me to look here, I have voted to merge. Are you suggesting that people who are interested in a particular subject should not be asked to comment when an article comes up for deletion? Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can certainly agree that this shouldn't be a problem. The HP Wikiproject has a subpage specifically to notify users when articles are up for AfD, and looking at the history of articles advertised there will show you that members of the Wikiproject have voted in a variety of ways. In fact, I notice that the two recent AfDs weren't placed there, so I will place it there myself. I would also note that he asked me to take a look simply because I am familiar with Harry Potter articles, not because we agree on this subject matter (as a matter of fact, we've had our disagreements). --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is meant to make information easy to find and reference, is it not? Michaelsanders 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Yes, encyclopaedias make information easy to find, but that doesn't mean that they should include completely unencyclopaedic information. --Rory096 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedias have lists of regnal dates, do they not? So how is this topic, or similar topics, unencyclopaedic? Michaelsanders 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, you're comparing fictional fantasy characters to actual historical monarchs and their dynasties? Bwithh 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, so you are biased against articles for works of fiction? Are you then qualified to judge here? Michaelsanders 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look. You've already acknowledged that this list of fictional birthdays is not as important as lists of dates relating to real people, so could you please stop playing the bias card? If we're biased for thinking that fictional dates are less important than historical ones, then so are you. Otto4711 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolute importance is not a good sole criteria for inclusion. It is necessary to consider relative importance to people. I spent £50 on HP, and so did hundreds of millions of other people. Not important? Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that absolute importance was the sole criterion. My comment was addressing how Michael was calling people "biased" and implying their opinions were less valid because they were saying that fictional dates are less important than real ones. 205.141.247.28 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was saying that if you think an article is by its subject matter irrelevant, then you are automatically bringing in a prejudice against it. Also, I was not aware that wikipedia moderated article existence/length based on importance. Shall we remove the article about Jane Grey because she only ruled for 9 days - so wasn't as important as other monarchs? Michaelsanders 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Star Wars characters shoe size? Lord of the Rings character's middle names?  Indiscriminate fancruft & listcruft (flistcruft?).  Proto ::  ►  19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The information is already included in character articles, which is sufficient. (I hope nobody will be inconvenienced when sending cards.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes it easier to find, however, than being spread through various articles. Would you delete a list of presidents, because that information was already included in their articles? What about the articles detailing the British peerages? The only difference here seems to be that a list of Kings and Queens, say, is historical, as opposed to fictional. Leading me to wonder whether any of you have a bias against articles regarding works of fiction. Michaelsanders 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear God - You're actually comparing a list of birthdays of fictional characters to a list of Presidents and monarchs, and claiming that they're somehow equivalent in importance? Delete as unencyclopedic, irrelevant listcruft. Otto4711 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Birthdays are actually reasonably important(in both real life and in the Harry Potter universe), more so than shoe size or middle names. This article could use a little expansion, some citations to sources, but it is neither fancruft or unencyclopaedic.  If you think this list should be deleted for collating that information, then you'd have to remove the information from each page.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Untrue. Birthdates may be important information within the context of a given article. It isn't the information that's objected to; it's the creation of an article for no other purpose than to list that information. Should we have a separate article for the birthdates of every character in every movie and book? Tragic romance 10:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Fanlistcruft. Take it to a Harry Potter wiki (I'm sure they are several out there) and see if they'll keep it. Bwithh 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in Harry Potter wikis, or in posting fan rubbish. I'm interested in making Wikipedia as thorough, useful, easily-accessible, readable, and organised as possible. Which is why I am trying to create this article, in order to get the information in a thorough and clear, easy to find and use manner. I understand that we are coming from rather different directions here - I value the Harry Potter series and am trying to ensure that its articles are of the best standard, whereas most of the contributors here clearly have no respect for it and obviously have no desire to actually give any thought to the matter. As to why I am comparing the article to a list of Peers or Presidents: those are relevant to you. This article is relevant to those interested in Harry Potter. You may not like that, but you have to accept it. From an absolute perspective, of course the birthday list is not as important as a list of historical presidents. But relatively, it is important enough to the Harry Potter project to merit retention. Michaelsanders 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael, nobody is saying that the Harry Potter series is unvalued, and is not relevant to Wikipedia. Surely this information already exists in the articles on each of the characters?   Proto ::  ►  22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.


 * Stong Keep See WP:NOT. The series has sold over 300 million books and been translated to 47 or so languages.  It's is hardly fancruft when the fans represent a significant portion of the population of the world.  John Reaves 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That there are a lot of fans doesn't make this anything other than fancruft. It just makes it monster fancruft. And the number of books that have sold is irrelevant to whether a list of character birthdays is an appropriate Wikipedia article. Convince me that it's encyclopedic to know that Cho Chang was born on September 7, 1979. Otto4711 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

LL*Harry Potter being popular is an entirely irrelevant reason to keep the article - please read WP:ILIKEIT. Proto :: ►  22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are times when I wish to know when a character's birthday is. I might be interested in finding out how many birthdays are known without digging around on the Rowling site. I might be interested in which character birthday is on a particular day. There are plenty of valid reasons why any Harry Potter fan might wish to see it, all of which comply with Wikipedia rules, and which you are blatantly IGNORING. Do you hold yourselves to any standard? You are showing a blatant disregard for the interests of other readers, measuring article relevance by your own yardsticks - despite the fact that your very lack of interest in the subject makes it impossible for you to grasp how it can be relevant! That simply is not on. Michaelsanders 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are times when I want to know all sorts of things that aren't important enough to be in Wikipedia. Otto4711 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But this is merely your opinion of what is important. Are you a Harry Potter fan? Or part of the Project to include and organise Harry Potter details? Or involved in its articles in any meaningful way? Because if not, who are you to judge whether such articles are important or not? Leave that to the Potter-related editors, who do know whether an article relating to HP is important, or relevant. Michaelsanders 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not merely my opinion, from the looks of the nomination... Otto4711 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You, and a number of others who have little real knowledge of Harry Potter. Michaelsanders 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know about the Harry Potter series, read all the books, liked them (THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE IS SNAPE!!!!!!! :p), but this is not suitable for Wikipefdia. The information already exists ont he articles of each character.  The information could go into the Dates in Harry Potter article.  What it is not worthy of is its own article.  Please try and understand there's a difference between thinking this is not suitable and hating your favourite series of books.  Proto ::  ►  22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very immature.Michaelsanders 12:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers end here.


 * Merge with List of characters in the Harry Potter books RHB 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge and redirect to Dates in Harry Potter. Doesn't really fit in the list of characters article. John Reaves 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Dates_in_Harry_Potter and delete the article. Replication of information is not required. (aeropagitica) 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean merge and redirect? John Reaves 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect with Dates in Harry Potter. Redirects are cheap. I'll admit to being a Harry Potter fan, and that I was notified of this AfD, but I don't think that should redistribute the weight of my vote at all. Speaking quite neutrally, this information is important but clearly the way it's been presented and the fact that it's in its own article is not doing much for it. I'd also like to reproach everybody for the icy attitude that has been shown in the exchange between "Harry Potter fans" and "Harry Potter deletionists." Just keep a calm manner, please, it's really upsetting to see a feud over something like this. Incidentally, the merging of a number of small, unsourced articles that don't merit their own space is currently being discussed at the WP Harry Potter, and this is one of them. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect with Dates_in_Harry_Potter, this is not needed as a separate list.-- danntm T C 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. TSO1D 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per above Subwayguy 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect suggest if you want to know a character's birthday, check the characer's article. Danny Lilithborne 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge no redirect. wtfunkymonkey 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What possible reason is there for not having a redirect? John Reaves 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging without a redirect breaks GFDL requirements unless the admin performs a history merge, and a history merge is much too complicated to perform except for exceptional cases... it's a rare article that gets merged without a redirect. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Dates in Harry Potter (Duane543 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete as fancruft up to our eyeballs, but if necessary, merge. -Patstuarttalk 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The creation of an article for no other purpose than to list minor information. Should we have a separate article for the birthdates of every character in every movie and book? Tragic romance 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because there are probably very few other movies or books where 25 characters's birthdays have been noted. And if they have been noted, it's probably important enough to be mentioned somewhere. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Dates in Harry Potter (although 'Dates' already has a section on characters birthdays, which very probably contains all this information already, so little 'merging' would be required). I'm not convinced the title really makes sense as a redirect... I always though a 'birthday list' was a list of presents I want for my birthday. But I find the arguments advanced above (broadly) that wiki should not give comprehensive coverage to a phenomen like 'Harry Potter', which probably interests more people than the majority of all articles as extraordinary, and on the lines of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'. Sandpiper 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect unique entries to Dates in Harry Potter as mentioned above. This article is somewhat redundant with the section of the target article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Merge Unlike the previous AfD discussion, this is about a lit containing no unique information; though birthdays as such are mentioned in the book, they are not generally a major plot element, and finding out who was born on a particular day is merely fan trivia. DGG 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's the next page you'll have to delete if you delete this one: List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch.  John Reaves 02:56, 14 December 2006 (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.