Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter (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. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Magic in Harry Potter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter. Artw (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources demonstrated in Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if the article remains in its current state. First glance, I actually think this could have potential, but it would need a good dose of TNT. I've never read the series or seen the movies, but the cultural impact of the series leaves me to believe that this topic could be redone from a real world perspective. I don't know if it's actually possible, but if someone shows the initiative, I would certainly change my opinion. As it stand, the article is Wikia-tier at best, and I doubt any of this content needs to exist. TTN (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You know that policy (WP:DEL-CONTENT) explicitly opposes this rationale, right? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. My gut instinct that it could be redone does not change that the current state of the article is unacceptable and that nobody has shown any inclination that it can actually be improved. As it stands right now, it should be deleted, unless someone shows proper sources or method of framing it from a real world perspective. The burden of proof is on those who want to keep it. It's just the problem is that popular series have this catch 22 where everyone votes to keep but they're never improved because they usually cannot be improved. This article will probably sit here for another ten years unless a wikiproject properly guts it like they did the Pokemon articles. TTN (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination here and for the related AfD's is an odd combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing that editing the article is somehow too hard. The edit history easily disproves the latter and the former is not a reason for nominating.  In the absence of a good nomination, the article should be kept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it's an ordinary combination of WP:extensiveplotsummariesdonotbelongonthissite. But I understand that many users have a WP:COI when it comes to Harry Potter ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  22:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of casting aspersions at other editor's motivations, may it not be more useful to actually, oh, I don't know, try to put forth a policy-compliant deletion nomination? 1,778 unique editors have edited this article, which is an enormous silent existing consensus.  In order for this AfD nomination to succeed, you need to build a new consensus.  You haven't done that, and the reasons you state for needing to build a new one are (as yet) trivial and personal. (By the way, search and search the COI policy all you want, nowhere will you find "Likes Harry Potter" as an actual COI.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when does a lot of people editing an article make it a good article? Since when does a lot of people editing an article make it comply with WP policy? Since when is looking up the list of unique editors relevant? Especially since one of them is me. And I think COI includes people who have strong feelings about a topic and let that blur their opinions, in this case blur their judgement on whether a massive bulk of plot summary is notable or worthy of being on WP. But I'm sure you're right anyway. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  23:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what COI means. Artw (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The topic is likely notable but the current article is 99% fancruft that needs WP:TNTing. Meh. It could be rewritten, so I guess there's not need to blow it up... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter - HP has enough mainstream flow on effect and interest to justify this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm agnostic on the question of Harry Potter. This seems to be a specialized theme of broad interest and subject of at least some independent inquiry counting towards GNG. Crufty in its excessive detail, but that is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 24 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.