Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-canonical spells 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is, and always will be in-universe. The threshold for notability is significant coverage from multiple secondary sources, and there is no evidence that any secondary sources have mentioned non-canonical spells. 17Drew 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Stop the Harry Potter cruft already! I frankly think some people somehow think that Wikipedia should have every detail on the series, but that's not going to happen. RobJ1981 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I'm generally infavor of more articles and stuff....this is over the line. At most it should be merged with existing HP articles to ensure their completeness.  But secondary source or third party is going to be writing about them to create the references for such an article.  --Rocksanddirt 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list is worthwile and, with a little work, could get up to at least a B-class article using Template:Cite video game, Template:Cite video and some other references. And RobJ1981, familiarize yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It could make its way all the way to featured list. But it still wouldn't be notable unless there are secondary sources covering non-canonical spells.  17Drew 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Completeness? I don't think so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of useful content, it's not a matter of "let's jam in every minor detail just so it can be complete". If it's useful and notable enough for other articles: I can see this information moved elsewhere. But if not: it just goes, and doesn't get resurrected as cruft. I know WP:IDONTLIKEIT just fine, so don't go throwing links at me. RobJ1981 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. RobJ1981, you seem to be very aggressive, calm down please. Just because someone disagree's with you, doesn't mean they are wrong and vice versa. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't assume and don't put words in my mouth, I'm calm. Your comments here, as well as on my talk page are a bit immature. Copying what I said, then putting in your view wasn't needed. I never once said I hated Harry Potter. I have the right to my opinion, just like everyone else. Where did I exactly say, someone was wrong? All I did was disagree. Calling someone wrong and disagreeing is 2 different things in this case (and most cases in my opinion). RobJ1981 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Well, RobJ1981 is likely, and understandably, frustrated that he cited the notability concerns brought up in the nomination, but you didn't address that issue at all and irrelevantly pointed him to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 17Drew 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete cruft. Bigdaddy1981 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Are you suggesting physics articles should be deleted because they are all written by physics geeks? The title is a bit of a misnomer, since everything here is information officially sanctioned by licencees of Rowling, it means information not from the books. As such it compliments another article, Spells in Harry Potter, which deals with the books. I don't have a problem with wikipedia collecting information from multiple sources about one subject. Do people round here not realise that it is now possible to get rich with real spendable money made inside fictional universes? Information is just information and deserves collecting simply because it exists and matters to someone. Sandpiper 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about this being written by Harry Potter geeks? Not all information deserves collecting; that's the very reason we have WP:V and WP:NOTE.  The verifiability policy is pretty clear on this: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  17Drew 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's not at all in-universe, the real-world origin of the spells is clearly stated. The lack of secondary sources is a problem though.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge with Spells in Harry Potter. While I don't fully think that this information should be deleted completely, it doesn't warrant its own article. The list pretty much cruft on it own, and could easily be merged into the other spells list, as it isn;t notable on its own. Gran2 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge This should be merged as explaned above by Gran.--JForget 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with both of the above posters. Keep it as a seperate section on the main Spells page if you don't want the canon and non-canon spells mixed, but the information definitely should be retained. 69.141.234.101 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although this is a movie, I think this should fall under WP is not a game guide.  Maybe transwiki to harry potter wiki, but this is not the place for this Corpx 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please dont merge, this is full of WP:OR and interpretation of a primary source.  Corpx 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Avada Kedelete. This is ridiculous, it's a list of very minor fictional things with little to no real-world content or potential for same. This belongs on a fanpage, not an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This was separated from Spells in Harry Potter for a reason; that article is ridiculously long as it is. Just because these spells don't appear in the books doesn't mean they don't qualify as "in-universe." GlassCobra 04:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Being solely "in universe" should be a reason to delete.  Something that lacks "significant coverage" from independent real world sources is not notable.   Corpx 05:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - not only are there not sources detailing significant coverage -- there are no sources at all stuffed with OR, this cruft should be trashed. Bigdaddy1981 07:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Even if they were in the book, this article would still be in-universe. Is there any information about why the directors or game developers/film directors created the new spells? What game/film critics said about them? If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it; it really doesn't get much clearer. 17Drew 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those types of information really aren't relevant. At the moment, this article is merely a list of spells that appear in various incarnations of the Harry Potter franchise besides the books. If you'd like to expand it to include a bit at the beginning about why these spells were created, I urge you to go right ahead. The article ought to be expanded and improved rather than simply deleted. GlassCobra 12:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're implying that this information exists and is available. Nothing so far has given any indication that there exist secondary sources that provide non-fictional information with which the article can be improved.  And if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  17Drew 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:TRIVIA which also fails WP:N and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Farix and per WP:NOT. Will (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This information has no relevance in the real world. Espresso Addict 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear your opinion on our coverage of the speculated shape or eventual fate of the universe, philosophical concepts such as gavagai, philosophical zombie and monads, or even the astronomical Great Attractor, though that's stretching things a bit. Sure, I'm not comparing the importance of this article to them, but all of these are completely irrelevant in our lives - the philosophical ones explicitly so. If the real world bears no relevance to this information, how on Earth did people in the real world learn and write it? --Kizor 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have two reasons why I think the article should remain: first of all, it is extremely comprehensive and deleting it would undermine a lot of hard work that probably went into it. Secondly, these shouldn't be including in the List of Spells in Harry Potter precisely because they're non-canonical. If it were merged with that article, it would mislead readers into thinking that they are as valid as the ones which appear in canon. &rarr;evin290 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:EFFORT. 17Drew 08:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite effort not being a sufficient reason to keep it, it should be sufficient to prevent deletion without examining the issue much further. &rarr;evin290 03:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, any source that could be found would invariably be OR or too primary to establish notability. Axem Titanium 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Extremely Strong Merge with Spells in Harry Potter with a mention that they are non-canonical spells. It really doesn't do to have them in an already estranged place, but once they're there, they can get a whole lot of help (and, unfortunately, hell). Once there, I strongly suggest using the HPL's page to help it out. Therequiembellishere 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter Lexicon appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. 17Drew 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when are fansites unreliable? &rarr;evin290 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a very reliable source, as they update fairly frequently (I say fairly, as I do know several pages that need attention) and they always use extremely reliable sources coming from either the books, the writer, the actors or their affiliates. Therequiembellishere 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a very good point - the Lexicon has a strict referencing policy. Probably better than ours. --Kizor 06:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then there's the often-mentioned quote which says that J. K. Rowling considers it a reliable source to her own works and uses it to research them. By no means do I claim that we shouldn't use discretion in sourcing from the HPL, but from what I can see, every statement is sourced in its coverage of this subject. --Kizor 06:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fansites are self-published sources. If their referencing is good, then simply use the references they cite rather than them.  But HPL doesn't qualify as a reliable secondary source.  17Drew 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But by using the HPL as a source, we instantaneously find what to cite it with. I said use the HPL, but not to use it as a citation. Besides, what real sources do we need for spells used in video games and films?! SHouldn't our only references/sources/cites be the games and the films themselves?! Therequiembellishere 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, primary sources can be used to describe the work itself. But there must be reliable secondary sources for the subject of an article, and it must have out-of-universe importance.  There should be information about why the directors or game developers/film directors created the new spells, what game/film critics said about them, etc., all referenced to reliable secondary sources.  17Drew 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to know what critics think about an invented spell? This isn't the films' articles. And JKR didn't make them, so the directors felt they had to substitute them, it's as simple as that. If they can work a computer, they should be able to know that! Therequiembellishere 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me put it simple enough for you to understand. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  If there is only in-universe information from primary sources and unreliable sources, then there is no reason to have an article about the subject.  17Drew 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then, but why are you being so rude?! You seem to know the rules well enough, so don't you know this one?! I never made a jibe against you, I was referring to the idiots of the world!! Therequiembellishere 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially for an admin. Therequiembellishere 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already stated five times that any article needs reliable secondary sources to be included in Wikipedia, providing examples of information that could be included if available and linking several times to WP:V. Yet you've ignored those comments and were still asking if the article should solely be relying on primary sources.  If you're going to keep trying to get around policy, then expect people to keep directing you to it.  17Drew 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ure there are sources for it, if we merge the page to the more appropriate and more looked at Spells in Harry Potter. And are you getting ready for your next year of University at MIT? Why are you spending time on an encyclopedia arguing about Harry Potter? I don't even give a damn about your answer. Therequiembellishere 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are sources, please provide them. 17Drew 08:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I hate leaving placeholder messages, but this seems like it's close to closing, so just adding another warm body to this side until I can get home and get a chance to do the detailed reasoning... --Kizor 09:30, 31 July 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.