Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (organisation)


 * 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 (non admin). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Phoenix (organisation)
The article asserts no notability, and has no real world sources to discuss it; as such, it is just a repetition of the plot of several Harry Potter books, and since the plot of those books is covered in their own articles, this article is just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per nom. Damn though; reading through this article spoiled the ending for me! (Dumbledore dies!? Nooooo....) :( Everything here can be found in the appropriate articles... Cheers, Spawn Man 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Effectively collects information from the 7 book articles into 1 place. By the way, what is it with you and Harry Potter deletions? Geez. Wl219 05:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Me or Judges? For me, I actually work for Voldemort and am secretly planning to destroy him; starting off by eliminating all traces of him from Wikipedia!!!!! Muahahahaha!!!! Spawn Man 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable fictional organization, just like Umbrella Corporation, Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and so on. After all, it's definitely the subject of numerous book reviews, and Time magazine hyping (I've read an article about the order several years back).--Alasdair 06:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable part of the Harry Potter series, covered in multiple books, reviews etc. Fosnez 07:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep extremely important part of an extremely notable series of literature, and the central aspect of book 5. Nominator is incorrect that no real-world sources discuss it: not only is it obviously discussed in countless reviews, it's also a center of discussion regarding the supposed real-world political themes found in the books, especially the last 4. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Too long to merge, too unencyclopedic to really keep. Maybe moving it somewhere else would be more appropriate? M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Alasdair. Order of the Phoenix is probably even more notable to the average citizen than the Hanso Foundation. wikipediatrix 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Keep in mind, sources must provide significant coverage, not just mentions. Also, simply saying something is notable doesn't make it true. Jay32183 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Though the article needs a lot of work, its subject is a very very large part of the Harry Potter books.--Gyrcompass 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article still fails WP:N and WP:FICT. Jay32183 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes since. I've removed my vote.  Remember though, those are guidelines, and they have exceptions.--Gyrcompass 21:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exceptions are determined by the strength of the argument, not the number of people arguing. Jay32183 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and the arguement for an exception here is strong. The Harry Potter books have sold 325 million copies, and since the name of one of them derives from this organization, this organization is probably significant enough to have its own short article.--152.23.100.89 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very weak argument actually. The organization needs real world significance, not fictional universe significance. Jay32183 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You've already been shown real world significance by its inclusion in the title and subject matter of a major book and film. Game over. You're just being stubborn at this point. wikipediatrix 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No one's being stubborn, this is a fair discussion. The Order is a much more significant organization that many of the others mentioned here, and if you were going to delete this, to be consistant you would have to delete those too.--152.23.100.89 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * People bringing articles to AFD are under no obligation to bring all articles that qualify for the same reason, WP:ALLORNOTHING. Jay32183 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Firstly, it satisfies WP:FICT by the obvious fact that it's crucial to the notable Harry Potter world (so much so, in fact, that it's even in the title of the latest book). This conferred notability is why Mos Eisley, SPECTRE, Hanso Foundation, Purity Control, Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, Starfleet, H.I.V.E., Syndicate (The X-Files) and the Stanfield Organization all have articles. Secondly, it gets 925 Google News hits at this moment. wikipediatrix 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FICT is about sources with real world context not importance to the plot. The sources need to have significant coverage of the fictional organization. A search for "Order of the Phoenix" will find a good deal of sources on the book and the film, so you can't trust the number. Jay32183 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are apparently just arguing now for the sake of arguing. The 925 Google News hits I just mentioned obviously are the real world context, and the fact that the Order of the Phoenix is in the title of the book and film is precisely why it's notable. Finally, WP:FICT is not policy and therefore invoking it in an AfD process is not criteria for deletion. wikipediatrix 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You've shown that the book and the film are notable, not the organization. notability is not inherited. You need sources about the organization, not about the book and the film. Being a guideline does not mean you can ignore WP:FICT for no reason, WP:ONLYESSAY. Jay32183 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ONLYESSAY isn't policy either. wikipediatrix 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ONLYESSAY isn't policy either. wikipediatrix 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Should we delete S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from James Bond too? SolidPlaid 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer to that question could very well be "yes", which is why other stuff exists is considered a bad argument. Jay32183 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay, let's delete Number since a number is only an abstract idea that occurs in some books. SolidPlaid 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, WP:WAX is, once again, not policy. wikipediatrix 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be policy for you to be wrong. I am not saying that's what it says so obey, I'm saying that "What about X?" is a bad argument and you can read that essay for details, which is what WP:ONLYESSAY says. Actually try reading these guidelines and essays before rejecting them if you wish to contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner. Notability has not been demonstrated. Another essay you should read is WP:ITSNOTABLE, because simply saying something is notable doesn't make it true, provide the sources. The sources don't exist, so you're kinda stuck. Jay32183 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse other editors of doing that again without considerably stronger evidence that they've committed such a glaring mistake. In fact, please don't do so with the same. It's not particularily constructive in either case. --Kizor 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is always constructive to ask users not to make bad arguments. Bad arguments get in the way of discussion. Instead of discussing the actual issue we have to explain why the argument is bad. In this specific case, I had linked to WP:ONLYESSAY, which was met with "That's not policy." WP:ONLYESSAY explains why saying something "isn't policy" isn't a good argument. I don't see how I could have done anything wrong or even impolite. Jay32183 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To reply to a few of the threads above, I agree the guidelines go against keeping the article. But they do say that there are exceptions, and maybe this should be one of them.  The Order of the Phoenix gives its name to a major movie and one of the best selling books of all time.  Its also mentioned in many reviews, including a Time magazine review of the last Harry Potter book (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1645771,00.html, fourth paragraph down)  It seems to me to be a reasonable canidate for an exception, though it does need heavy editing.  It could also be merged into one of the other Potter pages.--Gyrcompass 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But we don't have real world sources about the organization. The guideline WP:FICT is derived from the policy WP:NOT. Articles are not supposed to be dominated by fictional elements. Because of WP:NOR and WP:V we must have sources to provide the real world content. Simply mentioning something isn't a sufficient source, and having multiple sources is meaningless if they all say the same thing. There's no point in merging if the content here is already at the target article, and there's no point in a redirect because searching for "Order of the Phoenix" will take you to the right place anyway, no one would add (organization) or (organisation) unless they know the subpage is there. Jay32183 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fair.--Gyrcompass 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:FICT says to use deletion only as a last resort. Although the it-has-no-notability-in-the-real-world arguments are very convincing, I'd still say Ignore all rules for this article which happens to be the book title of one of the most selling books of all time and in-universe-notably spans several books. This article would be a perfect candidate for the planned In-universe rationale template that's currently planned on WP:FICT. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a slight problem with your "use deletion as a last resort" argument. Where are you proposing the content be merged, the main articles already have the necessary information. When the merge option fails you're supposed to keep going down the list, not back up. Next is transwiki, and again, the question is "where?". Jay32183 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FICT states an article on a fictional topic must "contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources." - the topic of this article has no real world notability. Since this fictional organisation plays a large role in the clearly notable book Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix any information on it should be included in that article. Guest9999 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Strong Keep; this one has a good deal of content that cannot be added anywhere else.  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 13:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable fictional organization with reliable sources easily available and does not fail any policies. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are these reliable sources that have significant coverage about the organization? The Google News search only showed articles about the book and the film, not the organization. Jay32183 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. Way to much excessive plot detail, moreso than is necessary for basic understanding of the parent topics. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep, It can be edited down, however it is a very NOTABLE, in the HP universe, and the information can not be added elsewhere. It should have its own page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ko2007 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Being very notable in the Harry Potter world does not mean a topic meets notability criteria. Real world notability (significant coverage by multiple rleiable independent secondary sources) is required as described in WP:NN, WP:WAF and WP:FICT/ Guest9999 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Well, my vote was still keep, and I really don't care what you think 9999, at all. As many people have argued WP:FICT says deletion is only a last resort. You're just taking a "nazi" point of view, anything you don't like you get rid of! **   ko    2007   **   00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, this sort of comment is rather unhelpful. I still sort of think we should keep it under the Ignore All Rules rationale, because it's such a big part of the Harry Potter books.  The article does need heavy editing though.  Then again, the article is a huge wreck, and will take a ton of effort to fix.  Especially with fans wanting to throw in every bit of trivia possible.  Delete.--Gyrcompass 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't appreciate being called a "nazi", please be civil. Guest9999 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Comment, I DID NOT call you a "Nazi" I said that you were taking a "Nazi" POV. There IS a difference! **   ko    2007   **   14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Deletion is a last resort" is not an argument for keeping. The order is keep, merge, transwiki, delete. The article fails the inclusion criteria, so "keep" is out. "Merge" creates too much of a burden on the main page, so we cross that out. With "transwiki", you'll need to say where to transwiki it, and that place would have to accept it. They may not if they feel what they already have is better. So we are, in fact, down to "delete". Jay32183 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was transwikied, it would probably go here http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix but I don't see any reason they'd want it.--Gyrcompass 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks like the best transwiki target, but I think their current article is better than ours, even by fan site standards. Jay32183 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, Guest9999, I apologize for using the term "Nazi", it was inappropriate. But it does seem that you have been taking a POV that would suggest that you do not like Harry Potter. Please correct me if I am wrong. **   ko    2007   **   21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Guest, but as one of the people who'd rather see this article merged I can say that I love the series. Liking Harry Potter or not really doesn't change most of the arguments presented here, for both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Alasdair - Very important part of the Harry Potter universe, and useful listing when searching for information on said universe. Ramskjell 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. So we now have a new piece of essay that binds us to essays and guidelines without good reason to do otherwise, with 'good reason' left up to individual discretion, meaning it's what that individual considers to be convincing... Please excuse me I exceed my ambient background level of cynicism about this matter. It's argued above that we shouldn't keep from following WP:FICT to the letter - apply that bit of common sense that guidelines definitionally encourage - for "no reason." I argue that being a central concept in the biggest book series in all of time is very much a reason. (This particular revision of FICT is also contentious and sparked a revision effort. Its author intended it to be a tool for retaining information but found it used too easily for deleting it.) Another reason to retain the article is that it leaves the decision up to the experts. The Harry Potter Wikiproject has an ongoing project to determine the breadth and form of its coverage - and (alas) not even close to a kneejerk "keep everything" decision. It's the most suited party to evaluate the main issue of what, how and where should be said about this subject. --Kizor 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, it is supposed to be easy to delete articles that consist only of plot summary. Common sense actually dictates that this article should be deleted, because there are no real world sources. Jay32183 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FICT is just meant to show how WP:NN can be applied to articles on fiction. WP:NN requires evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - no evidence of which have been shown in this discussion. I agree the information should be available on the internet for those who want to use it but I do not think it should be on Wikipedia. Guest9999 18:49, 21 September 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.