Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter


 * 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 all. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic in Harry Potter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An article that is basically an indiscriminate collection of in-universe material and it is unlikely to change. In the end the article has turned into a mixture of WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT Sin Harvest (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all largely suffering from the same problem and unlikely to be rescued:


 * Keep One of the greatest phenomena in both literature and film. 500-1000 page hits per day suggests the page is popular with a lot of people. Emilysusanclark (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that this is the articles for deletion page for all these articles. The Keep applies to all of them, although I note that some of them appear to be even more popular at 1000+ views per day.Emilysusanclark (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because something is popular doesn't mean it should be kept. No matter how popular an article it still doesn't change the fact that it is "a mixture of WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT. --Sin Harvest (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Magic, Universe, Places, Spells; Weak Keep on Objects, Creatures: Just because an article has some cruft doesn't mean it still isn't notable. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But is it notable? Even if it is notable does that mean it isn't WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, I just said it's notable. And it's unnecessary to repeat "not fansite" time and time again to people who disagree with you  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to keep repeating "not fansite" time and time again because it seems people keep ignoring the point that the reason for deletion is primarily focused on that (and the other points in the list) and not on verifiability or notability. --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, I went to some trouble to rewrite AfD footer (multiple) to get people to avoid bundled nominations such as this one. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge the 5 other articles you've nominated into this one main article, and keep the main one (and then redirect the others). The topic is probably big enough for its own, but there's no reason for distinctions between "objects", "creatures", "places" and "spells", when all would fit much better under one topic. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Now, take a single header within one of these articles: "Parseltongue". A Google Books search reveals:
 * The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter‎ Page 187 Tere Stouffer Literary Criticism 2007 249 pages Traditionally, the ability to speak Parseltongue has been the mark of a Dark Wizard. In fact, the ability has been associated with Salazar ...


 * Wizards, Wardrobes and Wookiees: Navigating Good and Evil in Harry Potter ...‎ Page 167 Connie Neal Religion 2007 229 pages Everyone thought / was Slytherin's heir for a while . . . because I can speak Parseltongue. ..." "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore ...


 * The Harry Potter Companion‎ Page 185 Acascias Riphouse Literary Criticism 2004 540 pages If speaking Parseltongue, the speaker believes she or he is speaking in a human language but observers hear it as hissing ...


 * Muggles and magic: J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter phenomenon‎ Page 273 George W. Beahm Literary Criticism 2004 393 pages Reparo: A charm used to repair a broken object. Reptile House: At the London zoo Harry Potter unknowingly speaks Parseltongue for the ...


 * Reading Harry Potter: critical essays‎ Page 169 Giselle Liza Anatol Literary Criticism 2003 217 pages Harry, able to speak Parseltongue, has a link to the natural world, and, ... The word "Parseltongue" closely resembles the word "Parsee," the name of a ...


 * Ultimate unofficial guide to the mysteries of Harry Potter, Book 5‎ Page 134 Galadriel Waters, Astre Mithrandir Literary Criticism 2003 412 pages Since Dumbledore usually is correct, we will have to strongly consider his statement in determining why Harry can speak Parseltongue. ...


 * Re-Read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Today! an Unauthorized Guide‎ Page 42 Graeme Davis Juvenile Fiction 2008 112 pages As for the “murmurs” this seems totally inappropriate to describe the loud Parseltongue hissing of the basilisk, which is what Harry hears. ...


 * The J.K. Rowling encyclopedia‎ Page 233 Connie Ann Kirk Literary Criticism 2006 374 pages ... the snake language itself, which makes a hissing sound, is called Parseltongue. The ability is rare and is often associated with those involved in the ...


 * Note that this is just the first page of the Google Books return, and it has given us a source for "reparo" as well. The nominator should also note that there is a "The J.K. Rowling encyclopedia‎" that is 374 pages long. Perhaps it contains sourcing for everything in these articles? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the stuff couldn't be verified but just because the material is verifiable doesn't mean that the content is notable or it isn't WP:Synthesis, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT, etc. It was never my intention to say that the article was not verifiable as I think there is a whole host of other problems with it. --Sin Harvest (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The JK Rowling encyclopedia is hardly an indication of notability for every possible fork of the primary article. When we're talking about notable primary articles, and their forks, simply indicating that a primary source (in this case the primary source) has mentioned all of the possible forks, is hardly useful for an encyclopedia. Shadowjams (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These articles are collections of topics; Magic in Harry Potter is a redirect target for Animagus, Unforgivable curses, Occlumency, Legilimency, Dark Mark, Parseltongue, Apparating, Phineas Nigellus, Portraits in Hogwarts, The Fat Lady, Metamorphmagus, Parselmouth, Squib (wizard), Disapparate, Apparate, Priori Incantatem, Dilys Derwent, Unbreakable Vow, Armando Dippet, Phineas Nigellus Black, Inferius, Unforgivable Curses, Magical portrait (Harry Potter), Disapparation, Inferi (Harry Potter), Dark arts (Harry Potter), Dark Arts (Harry Potter), Portrait (Harry Potter), Wandlore (Harry Potter), Magic (Harry Potter), and a number of others that don't have incoming links. Many of these articles once were stand-alones, and many could be sourced and stand alone once again. So these articles are anti-forks. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, or whatever other sci-fi fancruft that's gotten short treatment at AfD. I'm curious why this one is different? I do appreciate the anti-fork point though. I think it could go further too. Shadowjams (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If a topic has many secondary sources it should not be deleted. I have no doubt the every subtopic in all these articles has sources. This AfD is unlikely to generate any consensus on particulars of merging, and I fail to understand the nominator's interest in this well sourced corpus of work. Why not nominate some of the unsourced articles linked to in Shannara books. This template even has links to Wikiproject space! Or look at the unsourced articles in Category:David Brin. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Giving a definition on a major phenomenon in any fiction is in my honest opinion, very important. Say the Star Wars universe, would an "exaustive" definition of the Force be non notable? The nominated articles are clearly improvable in regards of citations and sources... Would a blanket deletion help in this case? 130.238.56.208 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep especially on the first three. People do search and continue to use these articles as part of the largest literary phenomenon. The list of redirects above shows that they also keep dozens of splinter articles at bay. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not so much of a "strong" keep argument as it is a strong redirect argument. Any thoughts about a possible merge? I'm not sure that you've indicated how those pages show notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Those article are already full of content and a merge would only bring up a article too big. Most of the articles in question are well kept clean by creating a sort of "canon law" which brings up only verifiable fact from the book of from source. I hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but here is a good example : would you all agree to delete all similar article from other series? I know Wikipedia is not Wikia, but those article still are about notable subject and are already used and read by a lot of people. Harry Potter is a strong phenomenon and I personnaly think that those "side" article deserve a place here. -- Stroppolo talk 02:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - in universe material that doesn't deserve it.     Cynof  G  avuf 09:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dear Sir, please elaborate why the material does not deserve a place on Wikipedia. Do you also possibly endorse a deletion of other definitions of major fictional phenomenon in a similar quality? Gsmgm (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sword of Truth universe, completely source-free, was not deleted in January 2010. Where were you then, Sin Harvest, Shadowjams and CynofGavuf? Abductive  (reasoning) 10:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all as valid break-out articles (with the undeniable prospect for adequate standalone sourcing) from a major fictional franchise. Merging these back into HP would create an overlong mess; they belong as separate topics. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all You would be mad to delete any of these pages! They are extremely informative in my opinion. Jammy (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all, all of them, especially the Universe, have recieved deep coverage and compromise lots of elements that have individually recieved coverage too but that are betterv organized in common articles: Hogsmeade/Diagon Alley/Platform 9 3/4 in the Places, the Marauders Map or the Knight Bus in Objects, Dobby the Elf or the Dementors in Creatures, etc. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  05:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All It is important to the Harry Potter series of articles. Rearden9 (talk)

Consolidated Reply:

"...The Sword of Truth universe, completely source-free, was not deleted in January 2010. Where were you then, Sin Harvest, Shadowjams and CynofGavuf?..."
 * Doing other things. I haven't spent a huge amount of time in Afd in a while unfortunately, why do you ask?

"...I fail to understand the nominator's interest in this well sourced corpus of work...."
 * My problem with it is that the articles clearly doesn't fit with several Wikipedia rules and I mentioned them several times already and they are in the nomination but another one would be that it violates WP:PLOT.

"Giving a definition on a major phenomenon in any fiction is in my honest opinion, very important. Say the Star Wars universe, would an "exaustive" definition of the Force be non notable? The nominated articles are clearly improvable in regards of citations and sources... Would a blanket deletion help in this case? " &

"...I hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but here is a good example : would you all agree to delete all similar article from other series?..."
 * I agree the Force is an important article and a blanket deletion on all these types of would be stupid. I also hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as well but this is what it is for because frankly although the Force should exist I think it needs to be fixed and in it's current state it is a poor article. To put into perspective look at Lightsaber it is an article like the ones we are discussing but it is written well and is basically about a plot element of a film/story/fictional piece but what sets it apart from being a poor article like the Force and the unrescuable articles listed here is that it contains information on how the the plot element is relevant to the "real world" aka how the light effect was created what the original prop was made with, it's "real world" origins in early drafts, etc. Now some of the topics within the nomiated articles could be changed into something reflecting like the Lightsaber particulary some of the Magical creatures (Harry Potter) because I know for a fact that there are pages out there detailing where the design origin of these creatures come from (usually from real life mythology). But as the little to none (and I'm leaning more towards the none) of the topics in the article even contains this information or any information pertaining to how the topic is related to the "real world". It is justifiable to say that the article be deleted and be recreated if an article which relates to the "real world" is made. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to delete an article and then recreate it if we already know there is real world content out there. That real world content, whether or not in the Wikipedia article, makes the subject notable. Perhaps the addition of a tag for the lack of real-world content or a tag stating that the article is written in an in-universe style is necessary, but not a deletion. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  19:44, 2 March 2010 (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.