Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notes on etymology in the world of 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 of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 14:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes on etymology in the world of Harry Potter
Original research and soapboxing. Someone seems to have a point to prove against Ms Rowling. [[Sam Korn ]] 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do a ton of these kinds of articles pop up at the end of every semester or something?  Seems like everyone wrote their term paper, turned it in, and then decided to post it to WP.  (This is a poor example and I'm just making a general complaint, but you get the idea.) Peyna 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and lack of references. 147.70.242.21 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain (just comment): Neither original "research" (did you read the article, or just make broad assumptions based on the title?), soapboxing, or a dis against Ms. Rowling. What it IS meant to be is a general disclaimer - and an attempt to defuse the ongoing debates on the existing Wikipedia pages about the rigourousness of the language in the works of J.K.Rowling. I'm supposing that you probably havn't noticed that there's endless debates on talk pages about the "Harry Potter universe" about whether this term is from Latin, or that is supposed to be Aramaic, or whether the spelling on page 27 is canonical, or the spelling on page 62 is the final word. This is attempt to defuse these debates by pointing out that there is no final answer, so just have fun with - but there's no need for upteen jillion contesting re-writes of an article depending on the viewpoint of the last author to get their paws on the page. If that's violation of the Wikipedia policy - and there seems to be a general policy against disclaimers in genreal - by all means, take it down - I don't have a lot of time or ego invested in writing it - but it was not created for the reasons listed in it's request for deletion. Beowulf314159 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go through this if you want to. This is emphatically not encyclopaedia writing.  It belongs on a fan site or something.  You are presenting your opinion in the article as a proven  fact: it isn't.  This is the definition of soapboxing.  Yes, I did read the article, and found it mildly interesting.  It is certainly well written.  However, it is emphatically not a topic for an encyclopaedia.  I have to say I haven't noticed these debates, but this is a big wiki, so that isn't entirely surprising.  And that's true, disclaimers are disencouraged.  But what is it you are disclaiming against?  If it is against the way articles are written and concepts presented in existing articles, then the existing articles must be changed to fit in with other policies.  By "original research", I mean to say that this is information that has never been published elsewhere and is your own point of view, undiluted.   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * thank you for the compliment. I can't disagree with your comments - it's not a "factual" article - it's only a by-product of the nature of the "public contributions" of a wiki. You're right in that were this a paper encyclopedia the article would not exist, and as such, it probably shouldn't be here.
 * Delete: Ok - you're right, it would not be in a paper edition of an encyclopedia. Beowulf314159 20:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Peyna 00:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Analysis of the texts down to the level of word usage on individual pages is exactly what the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter is for. Coördinating the efforts of editors writing on Harry Potter subjects is what WikiProject Harry Potter is for. Uncle G 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR.Gateman1997 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete insfar as this is original research and editorializing. Doesn't belong here.  Jtmichcock 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I clicked on this expecting something else. There is a much better list out there that I have seen before, showing all the Latin roots of names in HP. Like albus means white and malfoy means bad. Put that up instead.-- --(U | T | C) 09:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete in present form. There is a place for this, but maybe not its own article. Maybe as a subheading on a main Harry Potter article. Bill shannon 02:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that it is soapboxing. If people want to discuss the etymology in HP, just let them. It doesn't even give any actual facts. It doesn't really seem necessary to have an article for it. Maybe merge it with something else?
 * Move to either the Talk namespace or the Wikipedia namespace, perhaps under WikiProject Harry Potter. This is something more akin to policy than an encyclopedia article. &mdash;Brent Dax 19:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. Chick Bowen 00:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsalvagably POV. We could instead have an article on Harry Potter etymology (if there isn't one already) that mentions these criticisms (provided that verifiable sources can be found). Yeltensic42.618 23:30, 8 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.