Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Harry Potter parodies (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 but probably clean-up. --Haemo 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter parodies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Poorly sourced and trivial list. This is an indiscriminate list. Many of the parodies aren't very notable. RobJ1981 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Come up with an objective criterion to judge notability in this case and I'll remove any that don't fit it.  Serendi pod ous  12:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That wont fix the whole problem. The article is still poorly sourced and trivial. It doesn't show notability either. Being a parody of a popular subject doesn't justify the list. If that was the case: we would have 1000000 parody lists here: one for each popular book, movie and TV series. RobJ1981 12:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of similar lists on Wikipedia, from Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to Cultural references in The Cantos; from HIV-positive people to Mammals in Korea; from Vegetable oils to Important operas (how one determines which qualify as "important" I'm not sure). There's a Timline for Narnia and a List of English words containing Q not followed by U. All those lists are considered good enough to be featured, yet they all seem pretty random and trivial to me. You may ask why Wikipedia needs a list of Harry Potter parodies, but you could equally ask why it needs a list of Joan of Arc statues or Korean mammals. It's all pretty subjective, and simply not liking the subject matter is not good enough grounds for deletion.  Serendi pod ous  12:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never once said anything to the effect of "I hate the article, so it needs to be deleted" in my nomination statement. Read up on policies. Let's wait and see what OTHER people have to say. I see no reason why you should be flooding the discussion (like you did in the first nomination of this). RobJ1981 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict): WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument correct, just be careful WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't either. KTC 12:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. As per nom., semi-serious, subjectively fails WP:ENC. Ronnotel 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's been less than 1 month since the last AFD on this happened. Recommend closure as too soon. KTC 12:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - to be honest, I'm getting really fed up with these Harry Potter lists being put up for deletion. There are plenty of these lists, and they are so very useful. What content there is is very well put together - could it not be ammended? Because it's really useful stuff.  Lra drama 13:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Hardly an indiscriminate list in concept, since Harry Potter and Parody are reasonably defined. And parodies are certainly a reasonable thing to cover, especially since in this case, it has lead to some coverage of the subject. Read some of the content here to see why:  content.com/article/313199/barry_trotter_henry_potty_and_tanya.html.  Notability of individual parodies is not an important concern, the contents of a page are determinable outside the notability issue.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Incredibly notable subject that has indeed been parodied numerous times and so can be verified.  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - "usefulness" is not a metric or grounds for inclusion. This is original research, and certainly not a topic worthy of an encyclopedic entry.  Per WP:NOT, this is a loose collection of related information, not encyclopedic content.  This isn't the place, useful or not.  /Blaxthos 14:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Potter mythos is currently iconic, and the phenomenon of attracting so many parodies looks to me notable in itself. However, it certainly needs a trim to weed out those me-too examples that editors just found on the Web somewhere - as opposed to ones notable enough to be mentioned in reliable third-party accounts. (I've reverted a redirect by the proposer that destroyed a deal of detailed coverage of the more prominent ones at Parodies of Harry Potter). Gordonofcartoon 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the list needs to be reigned in to stick with the inclusion criteria and list only parodies of Harry Potter. The list has been badly bloated by, dare I say it - references to Harry Potter in popular culture.  Barry Trotter is clearly a parody of the series, but references to elements of the series on The Office does not constitute a parody.  As Gordonofcartoon, the "me too" type examples do not belong. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic list that cannot objectively aspire to a reasonable standard for inclusion, which is a basic criterion for lists. Eusebeus 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can we discuss this further? "Unencyclopedic" is an umbrella term for every possible problem an article can have, isn't it? By saying "Delete - unencyclopedic", the only thing you seem to mean is "This shouldn't be in this encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in this encyclopedia." We got that, can you go into more detail? --Kizor 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Same as above. Original research and unencyclopedic. -ScotchMB 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there is no requirement whatsoever that all the individual items in a article be notable. They must all be pertinent, & verifiable, though not necessarily yet verified. There hardly have been 1,000,000 creative works in WP worth the parodying (there are only about 2 million total articles), and of the few thousand that have been, not all that many will have multiple parodies that have attracted attention. This book series is more famous itself than most notable books, and so are its many parodies. Most of the items listed are by notable authors or creators or in notable shows. Objections to individual content is an editing question.  Per WP:LIST, usefullness is a criterion for a list.  And how parodies on a particular work are only "loosely" connected is the oddest use of the word "loose" yet in this series of nominations. DGG (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep HP's popularity has made it a notable target of parody, cases in point Barry Trotter and Wizard People. Trim if you want. Wl219 23:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is the second nomination in a month after a properly closed, full-length discussion. The current practice, where nominations can be repeated time and time again but deletion decisions stick, is one thing, but it's quite another to hammer on an article until it gives. I do not believe that constantly accusing an article and forcing those in its favor to rally for its defense is polite, useful for improving our content, a productive use of the time of anyone concerned, or in accordance with the letter or the intention of our rules - or did I miss the words "repeat as necessary" in the nomination procedure? I'm being blunter than usual here, but this is an issue with significant and far-reaching effects. Opinions? --Kizor 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At the same time, it needs to be said that the nominator has had no previous involvement, and I'm not accusing him personally of anything more than indiscretion. --Kizor 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * God, do I sound like a politician? --Kizor 03:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. One of the many measures of the success of Harry Potter is the number of parodies that made it into print.  65.207.127.12 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Content is notable by any criteron; deletion nomination not made in good faith 69.253.236.38 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm particularly curious to know the nominator's justification for calling a 34kB article with eighty six separate references "poorly sourced". Happy-melon 16:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep!!!!!!!!!!! - I think it is joke enought... Well, it shows the parodies, more information could be provided. Raymond Giggs 08:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate trivia and filled almost entirely with primary sourced material. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I usually prefer the deletion of "... in popular culture", but this list is well-formatted and of decent notability. Such articles are always a magnet for fancruft and trivia, but as it is now, I don't think it's a major problem. And who would argue that Harry Plodder, Terry Rotter, Barry Pooter and Barry Potter aren't parodies. Although I'm just an average HP reader in an unimportant corner of the world, even I had one of those parody books in my hand and read a little (it was bad, mind you). – sgeureka t•c 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well written article about a notable phenomenon. J I P  | Talk 10:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been two days since anyone responded. Can we bring this to a conclusion please?  Serendi pod ous  11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: At least Serendipodous is doing the one thing that I would have considered and that would be to remove trivial non-notable or less notable material to keep this page from being deleted. -Adv193 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or trim down. I wouldn't say delete, since some of these as examples might be good, and the GFDL and all. It might be able to stand alone, but I think the list is currently excessive. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Should be given a chance, it's pretty well referenced, the article creators should see if it can be improved more and if so, great, if not, merge/redirect. Judgesurreal777 06:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd normally would say this belongs in Harry Potter fandom, but I believe this was originally split off from the fandom article simply because it was getting too large. This article isn't written from an in-universe perspective and is well-sourced. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Indiscriminate" and "loosely connected" are starting to seem like woefully vague terms. Every work in the article has been specifically designed after the same thing. If that isn't commonality, color me flummoxed. Deeply, deeply flummoxed. --Kizor 17:18, 7 September 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.