Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horcrux (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 Keep. The consensus has been built that, although horcruxes are fictional elements, they are notable enough overall to justify having an article. Also, notability is asserted by sources. Maser ( Talk! ) 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page was previusly nominated for deletion with a result of no consensus. It has been a quarter of a year since then and in that time little has been done to address the problems with the article. Only two sources have been added (see ) one of which seems to be a quote from the book the objects are present in - and one is a transcript of a 'chat' with the author. There is still therefore no evidence that the article meets the primary notability criteria laid out in WP:NN which requires that a subject be the subject of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Apart from having no secondary sources the article also contains no real world information which is a requiremnt of WP:NOT (Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information to provide commentary on the works' real-world contex) and WP:FICT ("articles need real-world information to prove their notability"). WP:WAF also states that any article on a fictional topic should be based apon such information. Guest9999 22:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:FICT, seems to have no out-of-universe context. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, mentioned in a NYT book review, and a salon.com book review. They are mentioned in this article on how HP is crossing over to academia. Hence real-world notability. Also, crucial to the book series, suspend all rules, etc. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply In those sources the horcruxes are mentioned as part of the book not in their own right. They are not described or discussed in any detail, just mentioned in the same way a politician's children might be mentioned in an article about their parent. Most book reviews give some sort of a plot summary, that doesn't mean every aspect of the book mentioned in that summary is notable. Notability is not inherited.Guest9999 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep*Keep - There is a lot of work put into this article and there seems to have acceptable sources. If this article was deleted, then a lot of Harry Potter related articles would be in risk as well. Tavix 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply The fact that people have worked on an article is not a good reason to indlude it (see WP:EFFORT), also many many Harry Potter articles have been merged (or deleted) due to issues similar to those mentioned in nomination (see the notability discussion at WP:HP here and my list here) Guest9999 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep - Horcruxes are a major part of the Harry Potter series. I see no reason to delete the article. Johnred32 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep –. Have to agree the Horcrux have generated enough information and notability to have their own article. A quick Google Scholar search on Horcrux  produced 15 “Scholar” hits as shown here. . Shoessss |  Chat  03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of those articles some seem to be linked to fansites, some seem to be fan essays and at leats one just seems to mention horcrux in a list of words that come from the Harry Potter books. Guest9999 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Did not realize Tulane University had lost their accreditation and was demoted to a fan site. Shoessss |  Chat  04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did not realise that a dead link to a student thesis (the content and quality of which is unknown) confered notability. Guest9999 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * The deletion nomination is silly enough without devolving into petty bickering.  &empty; BRIT  3 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I apologise for my tone above, it was not constructive. Guest9999 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * STRONG KEEP This second deletion nomination makes less sense than the first. Since the first nomination, two articles, Nagini and Tom Riddle's diary have been merged into the Horcrux article. This is the right direction. Horcruxes are obviously notable, being the central plot point in the Harry Potter series, but there is no reason to spread the info into individual articles. One article will suffice. The horcrux article also gives specific notable information that cannot (and should not) be contained elsewhere, including details about the antagonist's (Voldemort's) immortality, the specific connection between him and Harry Potter, and Rowling's development of a series climax. Because Rowling spread the concept of a Horcrux through the entire series, the information in this article simply cannot be merged into an article about any specific book. And since the concept of a Horcrux has been so clearly defined by Rowling, both in the books and in public, it cannot be merged into an article about Harry Potter magic (which, itself, would be ridiculously in-universe). In short, it fulfills the basic elements specified as to what makes a good article.  &empty; BRIT  3 December 2007
 * Actually Magic (Harry Potter) is an existing article which been used as a merge target for many other things. Guest9999 04:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * REPLY Which is exactly why it's an inappropriate place for this kind of specifically notable plot point.  &empty; BRIT  3 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a plot summary and objective evidence of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources is required for a subject to be considered notable. If the content was to be kept thenLord Voldemort might be another potential merge target. Guest9999 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * REPLY If you think the info should be merged, then add a merge nomination. I'm not sure why you're determined to delete it. That said, the Horcrux article clearly serves a purpose as its own Wikipedia page. The article is not a "plot summary" and isn't even written like one. Notability is obvious, as the Horcrux was Rowling's climactic plot device through at least 4 of the 7 books in the series. I will grant you that early versions of this page were written in a very in-universe style (as is to be expected with any new page about a fictional subject), but the updates (especially over the last three months) have been aligning the article with the proper syle.  &empty; BRIT  4 December 2007


 * Keep. Important plot element in one of the most successful fictional works in history. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Axl 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Sewnmouthsecret 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Not Brit's reasoning above.  V-train 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Crucial plot point of the Harry Potter series. Now, can I cast Incendio to burn this debate into oblivion for ya? ViperSnake151 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:Plot, And WP:WAF. So far all the keep arguments fail to address policy violations. Saying this is important to the plot is very silly since we have WP:Plot. Ridernyc 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * REPLY As noted above, the Horcrux article is simply not a "plot summary" and isn't written like one. If the article needs clean-up, then clean it. Or, if there are other policy violations, please note them and we will clean it for you.  &empty; BRIT  4 December 2007

Strong Delete - This is a very important point You cannot claim its notable without DEMONSTRATING IT through reliable sourcing.. Because otherwise, your not basing your arguments on Wikipedia policy and your arguments will be ignored. Judgesurreal777 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since it is notable. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The google scholar hits establish notability (linguistic and folkloric as well as fictional), few though they are (after weeding out the duds I see 4, maximum 5, that would really count). The notability of the series as a whole fully justifies a WP:SS approach to central elements like "Horcrux". My pet peeve just now is people who say "despite the tags nothing has been done for x months" and then instead of doing something, spend the same amount of time or longer in a fore-doomed discussion like this one. --Paularblaster 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind giving an example of one of the links that establishes notability? Guest9999 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Not this week - I do have a life. --Paularblaster 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But quickly from memory, since I've just finished work and am still at the computer: there's a German article that discusses fairytale elements of the Harry Potter books, and specifically horcruxes as an example of the "giant who kept his heart in a box"-type story element, this is the primary one; then there's a piece on using Latinate terms from Rowling ("horcrux" among them) in the teaching of Latin in classroom situations - as real worldas you could wish for; then there are a couple of borderline pieces, on the Christian symbolism, that devote some attention to horcruxes. Children's literature and popular culture are both topics of serious scholarship these days, Harry Potter is a major phenomenon in both fields, and the secondary literature that deals with aspects of it, including horcruxes, can only grow. This makes it a showpiece candidate for WP:SS treatment. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * REPLY I honestly don't understand how notability is in question. Here are a couple random links... BBC, ABC News, and New York Times. The Horcrux has "received substantial coverage" because it is impossible to discuss the climax of the series without referencing Horcruxes. In fact, I might ask you to provide us a link to any discussion anywhere about the Deathly Hallows that does not reference Horcruxes.  &empty; BRIT  4 December 2007
 * All those sources mention horcruxes in relation to something else, namely the Harry potter series or individual books. Information on Horcruxs already exists in the articles on those subjects. Guest9999 18:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * REPLY First, secondary sources on the Horcrux contain "information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise" - this info will only expand as the books and movies continue to gain momentum. Second, "articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop" - the final book in the series is barely 4 months old and Rowling has been giving limited interviews since then. Finally, "to avoid inefficiency, editors should only nominate articles that (cannot be kept, merged, or transwikied)" - you have now nominated this article for deletion twice in less than 3 months and are apparently totally ignoring the obvious improvements other editors have made and will continue to make. In Rowling's development of the series climax, she continued to build on the concept of a Horcrux as a means of linking important plot points, including Harry's scar, Voldemort's apparent immortality, Voldemort's inability to kill Harry, the death of Harry's parents, Dumbledore's relationship with Tom Riddle, etc. These are important details and help us to understand Rowling's state of mind as an author. As time passes (especially as the movies are released and Rowling gives more specific details of her writing development), the real world significance of the Horcrux concept will only become more acute.
 * Again, if the article needs to be cleaned up, then clean it.  &empty; BRIT  4 December 2007
 * Anything from Rowling does not count as an independent secondary source and cannot be used to confer notability. Also wikipedia is not a crystal ball we cannot and should not predict what kind of coverage a topic will recieve in the future. Guest9999 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * REPLY We're both using the same style guides to argue completely opposing viewpoints. It's kinda silly. I'm going back to basics: The deletion nomination makes no sense because there is specific pertinent information contained herein, including two articles (Tom Riddle's diary and Nagini) which have already been merged into Horcrux. I might (might) be willing to entertain a merge nomination if you could point to the specific articles into which the info should be merged (or point out which info needs its own article). I would be less happy to see a transwiki nomination, but am willing to listing to one's reasoning. I would be glad to see a "clean up" notification and even an "in-universe" notification - a few of us have been working on those very things anyway. But you have, as yet, been unable to show why the information should be removed beyond your insistence that notability hasn't been established. I understand that Wikipedia articles should live up to the style guide, but that's exactly what we're working on. I encourage you to help us.  &empty; BRIT  4 December 2007
 * Reply I think that it may be appropriate to keep a certain amount of the content, sections that already exist in other articles could easily be expanded (such sections exist here, here and here) or a new section could be added to the article for the sixth book (the one where all the horcruxes are identified). However the topic on it's own does not meet the notability requiredments set out WP:FICT, which is a reason for deletion. Looking at the sections mentioned above, they are less 'fleshed out' than I thought they were and had I checked this I may have suggested a merge of the information before nominating at AfD. However AfD is not about the content of an article, it is about its topic and I still do not think the topic of this article meets the criteria for inclusion. Guest9999 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep per my argument in the last discussion. faithless   (speak)  02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the keep !votes above and my reasoning in the previous AfD. Evidently notable topic. Article has sufficient sources. PeaceNT 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's see…the nominator recently created a one-sentence article about a highly obscure chemical compound called 3,4-dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene (it doesn't even have a name for it, just a code), yet he think Horcruxes aren't notable enough. A plot element known by millions of people worldwide isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that already has over two million articles and isn't running out of space or bandwidth money any time soon, but a chemical that is only notable for being used in the synthesis of bicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-one (which doesn't even have an article or any mention even in any article [checked using the Wikipedia search engine] on Wikipedia) is notable enough. Does this person seem qualified enough to nominate this article for deletion?--Somegroup 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate that article for deletion if you think it warrants it. Guest9999 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Sorry I noticed that this was your first and only edit so you may not be familiar with the deletion processes for articles. They can be found here, here and here. You seem to be quite knowlagble about Wikipedia (nominators, notability, search results, etc) so I assume that you were around for a while before deciding to create an account, happy editing. Guest9999 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Keep Length of time without improvement isn't a valid deletion reason. There is no deadline. A notability or refimprove tag would be more appropriate here than an AfD. Rray (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's only the case if there is a possibility that the article can be improved to the standards required for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball using information that currently exists, if a topic is not notable now then it should not have an article now. No evidence has been provided to suggest that the article meets the notability criteria for an article on fiction in this discussion, the last discussion several motnhs ago or the period inbetween.. Guest9999 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Reluctant merge to Magical objects in Harry Potter. I thought about this for days because Horcruxes are a major part of the HP series and I couldn't image how the information should reasonably trimmed to fit into another article (because nom's right: it violates quite a few policies and guidelines with no ways to be improved). But I had a look at de:Begriffe der Harry-Potter-Romane, which presents all necessary information to the point. I also had a look at a HP wikia which lists all Horcruxes in detail. Maybe get rid of too much plot and rather cross-wiki-link to wikia for in-universe detail? – sgeureka t•c 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, as stated in the previous comment, has relevant information that should not be eliminated from Wikipedia. The article also has a section for a character that is not listed anywhere else. Lord Opeth (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2007 (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.