Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies of 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.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Parodies of Harry Potter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Egregious trivia, very few sources discussing the actual concept of a Harry Potter parody, just a list of works that have parodied it. WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, WP:TRIVIA. Last AFD suggested WP:SOFIXIT but I still don't think it's reparable; if anything it's only gotten 9001 times worse since then. Also, none of the other people who said "keep but trim" stepped up to the plate, thus forming one big damn infinite loop of "someone else's problem". That's been happening way too often. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was right to keep this last time and it still is. It's fixable, and the fact that it still has issues after a year doesn't justify deletion.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As far as I am aware, a fixable article doesn't stop being fixable just because noone has bothered to fix it in over a year.-- K orr u ski Talk 09:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's useful information to people interested in the topic, and harmless for the rest of us. AfD fans would do better to focus on articles which could harm real people. It also does not need to be "fixed." The title shows it's a formless mass of trivia. People who like that will enjoy it, others should avoid it altogether.Borock (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Im-freaking-peccably sourced, with 112 footnotes. The billion dollar Harry Potter franchise has spawned a cottage industry of parodies, so I can't agree that this is simply trivia.  According to the Sunday Times, Harry Potter is the most parodied work of literature, with the Lord of the Rings in 2nd place, and Sherlock Holmes in the top 20.  Mandsford 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Classic argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So are we gonna fix the damn thing or what? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is (still) not for cleanup. If you have concerns about an article then its talk page is the place to raise them. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single time I've posted to a talk page it's gone unanswered for as long as a year. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Besides the reasons proposed for this nomination, the parodies themselves are not notable. It's more than enough to mention that Harry Potter has been parodied in several media in the Harry Potter article with some examples. Shakespeare's work has been parodied several times but that is not a good reason to list every single parody that has existed that is not notable by itself. Moreover, the parodies should be mentioned in the original work where they were released, not in an article that list them independently. Most sources used are either to talk about how Harry Potter was referenced, not about the importance of the parody itself, or are descriptions of the parody without commentary or review as to why the parodies are notable. The article is a derivative article, an unnecessary split and an unneeded content fork. This type of article is material for a fansite but not for an encylopedia. Jfgslo (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasoning by Jfgslo. Hekerui (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep fixable and expandable. The way to  over topics that are not themselves individually notable is to have them in a combination article.    DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 22 November 2010 (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.