Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleNet/2005-10-07


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I am placing a request to remove the deletion process as my account was hacked into and I have no intention to nominate MuggleNet for deletion. This deletion process is not the fault of the original account holder. Rajdumbledore 07:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Request denied - afd discussions are not to be deleted. --Doc (?) 08:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * However, while we do not delete the discussion record, we do have the option of Unlisting the page, or in my interpretation, closing the debate as "speedy keep", as seems to be the consensus. However, I already voted on the page so I can't take that action. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Mugglenet
I am correcting a malformatted afd. I vote speedy keep as a bad faith renomination of a page that has passed an afd process already. Usrnme h8er 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Previously this article was also nominated for removal, which was saved by the MuggleNet fans themselves by voting in favour of keeping the article. Apparantly MuggleNet had posted this link to vote in their favour on CoS forum [MuggleNet's official Forum]. This was a serious bias decision as majority of voters were MuggleNet fans redirected from the Forums and they had no idea what they were voting for or What Wiki is really about. The previous Nomination for Deletion page can be found here.

An Excerpt from previous nomination which proves MN's intentions:


 * Keep - As harry potter fandom is one of the biggest in the world and mugglenet is the most popular fansite within it, Mugglenet should be kept but definitely expanded. It has a rich history in the fandom and it's inclusion in this article would greatly expand it <--- See! They want MuggleNet to expand by including it on Wiki. Now tell me, is it ok for sites to make pages of their own to gain hits for their sites? Isn't this Vandalism?


 * No, it's not. To be vandalism, it has to make a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". If it's simply promotional, it's wrong. But not vandalism.Eaglizard 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Also MuggleNet is really cautious of not letting this article to be deleted. If MuggleNet is notable enough and worthy enough to be included in Wiki, why is MuggleNet trying so hard to save this article from deletion? Why are majority of voters from MuggleNet who vote in favour of keeping MuggleNet on Wiki? It is time that this has to stop! And the time is now. Lets make Wiki the best encyclopedia in the world, not a advertising campaign/dictionary.

And now, speaking of whats left of that big article now is this: Emerson made this site [it was a different layout not the current one] when he was 12. So what? There are loads of people who make sites at the age of 12. How will this information justify its existence in an Encyclopedia? Ask majority of the people in the world, take a survey. Do they know MuggleNet? I agreee they know JK Rowling and Harry Potter, but MuggleNet? What is MuggleNet?

2nd point: He met JK Rowling once. So? Many fans met JK Rowling. Its not like they are having telephone conversations everyday. And even if he knows JK Rowling like a friend, so what? If you say include this article because he know JK Rowling then I suggest you also put up articles on JK Rowlings husband, her family, her friends, her children. Is this justified. Surely not. --Raj Dumbledore 05:10, 05 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Mugglenet seems to be antibritish, well anti-everything-non-american actually. - Richard Myers, richardmyers@hotmailco.uk
 * Would you care to substantiate this allegation? Maybe a note on the talk page would help. —Phil | Talk 11:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is being anti-British a criterion for deletion? Should we AfD Hitler, Napoleon, Julius Caesar ...? AndyJones 20:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * George Washington, Jomo Kenyata, Mahatma Gandhi ...? AndyJones 22:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mad cow disease, the European Union ...? AndyJones 00:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It was AfD before and survived. I notice too that Rajdumbledore has made multiple (all this morning), and what looks as if they could be questionable, edits to MuggleNet all of which are listed as minor. It's hard to understand how a AfD notice, his last edit, can be minor. Also I notice that on User talk:Rajdumbledore he has created his own Harry Potter sites and that makes it appear as if he has some other motive than a legitimate AfD. In one point he is correct I had not heard of MuggleNet, nor his own sites, however just because I have not heard of a site does not qualify it for obscurity. CambridgeBayWeather 12:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC) --- Your reply has made me again enforce one point. Someone had HACKED in my Wiki account. I had no control over it. I just got back the access yesterday. 2nd thing. I have nothing against MuggleNet. I think its good site too. But its inclusion in Wiki is not called for in my opinion. Lets not make this personal war. I am not Anti-Mugglenet activist for God's sake.


 * Abstain, but consider this. Deletions must be based on the here-and-now, not the past. What is MuggleNet's status right at this moment, never mind the past AFDs? Is it, in fact, an inherently notable site on its own merits (number of users, importance to the fandom, etc). I'd go as far as to suggest that those who voted for and against in the previous AFD abstain from vothing this time, since this sort of thing is biased. Actually, I'm going to go Delete on this out of non-notability. --Agamemnon2 10:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I must disagree as to deleting an article just because it's no longer notable. A better requirement (my POV) is that as long as it was notable at any time it should be here. CambridgeBayWeather 04:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Mugglenet is one of the very few Harry Potter websites granted an award by J. K. Rowling herself, and as such is highly notable. The author was one of two people granted an exclusive joint interview with Rowling at the time that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was released: this would not have happened had the website not been so prominent in Harry Potter fandom. —Phil | Talk 11:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: this is really unclear, and the lengthy spiel above is badly formatted and almost illegible, but it would appear that this is a bad faith nomination by the creator of one or more rival Harry Potter fan-sites: the fact that the nominator has made so many confusing edits to the article, all marked as "minor" but removing apparently-siginificant information, does not help matters. The previous nomination resulted in a resounding keep despite being formatted almost to death.
 * Keep, this is a remarkably notable site. I've never read any of the books, but even I have heard of it.  I heard an interview with Rowling once where she said that she used Mugglenet regularly to check her own continuity.  If that isn't notibility, I'm not sure what is.  Also, in response to this: "Ask majority of the people in the world, take a survey. Do they know MuggleNet?", if that was the standard for deletion, Wikipedia would be very small, not to mention useless. -- Plutor 17:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, I am fed up of these constant votes for deletion, and this is actually the 3rd not the 2nd. Please can the people take a hint that it should NOT be dleeted?  It is worthy of the Wiki article because it is an essential part of Harry Potter fandom. (Jamandell (d69) 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete An essential part of Harry Potter fandom? As decided by who and what? The guidelines for Wikipedia, which tend towards the non-notiable classification, or the people who frequent Mugglenet...who have already established a bias towards keeping it even if nobody but their rather small community considers it worthwhile. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about personal biases, that's why their are guidelines and classifications for what does and does not go here. Now, I'm not saying that my recommendation of Delete is automatically correct, or that all others MUST vote for Delete as well. All I ask is that people look through the guidelines for content and make their own decisions rather than be swayed by situations like the LAST time, where Mugglenet forum members swarmed over here to vote for Keep. Nezu Chiza 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep While this forum may not be "essential" to anything, it has enough of a fanbase and outreach to make it noteworthy. If this is up for deletion than we should put Fark and Something Awful up with it. Makenji-san 22:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per CambridgeBayWeather and Jamandell's comments --Presnell 00:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. (If Speedy Keep fails.) Esp. if they get the 6 million hits a month they claim. Even if not, it's clearly legit, I checked Rowling's official site, and mugglenet is the 2nd of 4 or 5 fansites listed, and she has this to say: "It's high time I paid homage to the mighty MuggleNet. Where to start? I love the design, (I currently favour the 'Dementor' layout), the polls (I actually voted in the 'Who's the Half-Blood Prince?' one) the pretty-much-exhaustive information on all books and films, the wonderful editorials (more insight there than in several companion volumes I shall not name), 101 Ways to Annoy Lord Voldemort (made me laugh aloud) ". Not that Rowling's praise makes it notable, but it does prove its a well-recognized fansite of an enormously popular series. And no, I'm not a sockpuppet, I've not read a word of those books. Eaglizard 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the top website for Harry Potter fans throughout the world. As to the fans at the site rallying to save the page upon learning it may be deleted, there's no "bad faith" I can see.   Jtmichcock 17:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, already survived VfD attempt, notable website. And yes, rather smells of a bad-faith nomination. H e rmione1980 17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable website. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 18:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I know enough people from a diverse social situations who know about Mugglenet. Just the other night Mugglenet came up in a non-Harry Potter related meeting I was at. Oh - and the majority of people in the world don't know about the vast majority of things on Wikipedia.  And if you look at the people voting keep on this page, you'll see we aren't just "fans of the site".  We're regular wikipedians. Cmouse 02:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One thought: isn't it the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform you of things that you don't know about? If all the information on Wikipedia was stuff we knew about, then what would be the point? I run across obscure words, references and URLs all the time.  Where are we going to find out more information if not here? Jtmichcock 02:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But I didn't know about Mugglenet until I saw the AfD. An encyclopedia can't guess what everybody knows. It has to include as much as it can. Insofar as it's of some importance. I'm sure that you would not suggest that we delete Weather even though we all know about it. CambridgeBayWeather 04:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Assuming that the info currently in the article is true, then Mugglenet has several reasonable claims to notability, and judging by the discussion here I'm inclined to accept the veracity of the claims without bothering to research them. Caerwine 04:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jtmichcock. It's... Thelb4! 06:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Absolutely a notable and compehensive website that should be mentioned. --Egil530 14:41, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.