Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (4th 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 merge to Magic in Harry Potter to a limited extent, focusing on real-world and sourced information rather than plot summary.  Sandstein  08:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Potions in Harry Potter
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has, since it's been reinstated, had none of its issues fixed, and likely won't be able to: it reads much like a list, doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N), and directly violates the WP:PLOT policy. Because its essentially impossible to frame this article's contents in a real-world perspective, it belongs on the Harry Potter wiki (see MOS:INUNIVERSE). This has been brought up before, and the promise that the article would be revised A) has not been fulfilled; and, B) cannot be fulfilled. Theologus (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Theologus  (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Theologus  (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Magic_in_Harry_Potter. Sources brought up in the last AfD were weak, in passing and almost entirely focused on plot.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems like a Fandom page. Unsourced, written like it's on a depository of information, and about something that doesn't seem to go well on a website like Wikipedia. It's also just a list, and they could all be summed up in one sentence. Per WP:WPINWA, I think it really belongs on the Harry Potter Wiki on Fandom. Arsonxists (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Week keep/merge per my my previous !votes ... I'm quite OK with single-sentence descriptors of the potions *somewhere* but I'm not OK with broken links. I'm getting more and more meh about this as time goes on. It's worth noting though that the potions section in Magic in Harry Potter is about the Hogwarts subject, not necessarily the actual potions. Graham 87 06:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainly delete, the only one sufficiently notable for its own section somewhere is the Polyjuice Potion. The problem is I'm not sure where to put that information in a different article. El Millo (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a disruptive re-nomination per WP:DELAFD, being a pointy spinoff from the current RfA. The nomination's claim that work is impossible is blatantly false.  For example, I recently added a relevant photograph.  This was taken in the real world where Potter re-enactment and memorabilia is a billion dollar business – there are entire shops that sell nothing else.  And there is extensive literary analysis of the potions in works such as Literary Allusion in Harry Potter.  I have made a start on identifying and using such sources but it's a thankless task while the nay-sayers who complain about no effort, don't do any work themselves.  The applicable policy here is WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  As this is clearly possible then that's what we should do. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is sourcing that would support a distinct article on this topic. This article, however, is far from it. So in the end I come out a bit neutral on whether appropriate coverage of this topic is best achieved through a separate article or through coverage as part of a larger topic (i.e. Magic in Harry Potter). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Magic in Harry Potter per the same rationale I used in the last AFD. The descriptions for every entry here are just in-universe plot summaries, and the sources that are being used to support that information is also just plot summaries.  Nothing has changed since the last AFD to convince me that this is a justified spinout article, rather than just having the overall concept of potions in the franchise covered in the main article on magic.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to have two sections titled Potions at Magic in Harry Potter: one a section for actual potions, and the other one as a subsection of Subjects at Hogwarts, which is the one that currently exists. We could either merge some of the information in this article to a section there, or draftify in order to make it better, if Barkeep49 is right in that there is enough sourcing for it. El Millo (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Magic in Harry Potter and consolidate the paragraphs to one-two sentence bullet points. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep edit history not picky if this winds up a redirect or not. In terms of Wikipedia practice,  I would ask which is better:  1) Copy-and-paste this into another article and replace it with a redirect,  2) redirect and make sure target had at least a summary of what is in the page, knowing that over time that "summary" may expand and expand until someone decides it's time to split the page, 3) same as 2 but "guard-dog" (WP:OWN) the target to make sure excessive expansion doesn't happen, 4) leave things the way they are (keep), or 5) delete the page, possibly replacing it with a redirect.  I'm not sure which will be best in the long run, those are the options on the table.  I'm against option 5.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  19:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Historical note in 2005, this was split off from Magical objects in Harry Potter with the edit summary "splitting of Potions section, article too long". The "magical objects" page is several times longer now than it was 15 years ago. There are several other pages on the Fictional universe line of Template:Harry Potter.  Should all of them, save those with large out-of-universe/independent-source coverage, be removed?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  19:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not quite ... I started the current iteration in 2015 from text that had been removed from magical objects in Harry Potter without being moved anywhere else; See this discussion. If I'd had my time again I might've just put the content back there and moved the page to a more inclusive title like "Potions and magical objects in Harry Potter" ... that could still be a possibility now. Graham 87 04:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Potions could qualify as magical objects of sorts. To include them as part of the title would be to give them WP:UNDUEWEIGHT compared with the rest of the article. El Millo (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... was just thinking maybe a name change to something like "magical items in Harry potter" would solve both problems. Graham 87 04:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Magic in Harry Potter, per my comments in the last AfD. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge I think, like Andrew Davidson and contrary to the nomination, that this article indeed can be improved. In a very preliminary search I did not see an encompassing treatment of potions as a group yet, but e.g. The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy, The Riddles of Harry Potter and Literary Allusion in Harry Potter together (with the primary sources) probably have enough material for a stand-alone article on the love potion in Harry Potter alone, though probably it is better off in this list here. Other potions have shorter appearances in secondary sources. So the remaining question is, would the topic better be treated stand-alone, or in expanding the section of Magic in Harry Potter. As that is already large, I would at this time prefer stand-alone. Daranios (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many secondary sources detailing potions as shown here and in previous deletion discussions, so fullfilling WP:GNG should not be a problem. I find WP:ALLPLOT the more serious objection, and I think the article as it is now fails that guideline. But I think if one is willing to spend the time to look for the indivdual potions, there's enough non-plot information in secondary sources out there. I've already made that point for the love potion with the three sources above. The Ravenclaw Chronicles adds more analysis for that, and then goes on to talk about real-world paralells and ethical implications of the Veritaserum. The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy talks about the philosophical questions raised by the existence of the Polyjuice Potion. That's as far as I have looked so far. So again, I think the article can be improved to a point to fulfull both WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT. If it should rather be seen as a list or an article is another question. Daranios (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the Hogwarts' subject of potions also within the scope of this article, as the introduction suggests? Then here's another paper about the real-world impact of the fictional subject: Muggle Magic: Learning Through Play in Harry Potter's World Daranios (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, that it covered in full in Magic in Harry Potter. El Millo (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arsonxists ―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge I wouldn't object to deletion, but there appears to be a growing consensus to at least preserve the history, if not some of the content. This subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG because it is largely unsourced or cited to primary/officially licensed sources. Similarly, those primary sources only cover this in-universe, so there is nothing to write here that isn't WP:JUSTPLOT, which is something that Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. I do see a decent redirect/merge target as a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Magic in Harry Potter. There are some pieces that seem interesting, but having just potions in a Wikipedia page would not be ideal. As Arsonxists already mentioned, it seems like it belongs to a Fandom wiki more so than a General Wikipedia page.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 20:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and trim to Magic in Harry Potter. Unnecessary CFORK split and it will easily fit into and improve the target article.  // Timothy ::  talk  08:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - Though the current proposed target article for merging is also in dire need of either deletion or massive rescue effort, this page in particular lacks the necessary coverage in reliable sources to currently need an article. There is no particular benefit whatsoever to retaining this content, as nobody has shown anything that justifies more than a few sentence summary elsewhere. TTN (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The delete !votes so far have ignored the existence of the secondary sources about the subject, those already in the article, as well as those suggested here, and in previous deletion discussions - almost all of which, by the way, were not yet existant at the time of the first deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've stated multiple times that you disregard GNG's need for per-source significant coverage, and you have not provided anything significant covering the potions of the fictional universe as a whole. You have not provided any argument as to why this page in particular needs to exist. You've just stated a preference for it over attempting to improve what can be called the parent article and then later splitting it back out should there be too much weight on the topic. If those sources even count as significant coverage, there is no reason why the one or two paragraphs the topic deserves in Magic in Harry Potter (assuming that can be salvaged) cannot cover them. One or two specific potions being covered to some extent does not provide sufficient reason to have an entire article on the subject. TTN (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In general I don't see a need for per-source significant coverage, as compared to just overall significant coverage, that's true. If this is stated somewhere in WP:GNG, rather than being an opinion about WP:GNG, please point me there. I don't at all think that I am disregarding WP:GNG in total for two reasons:
 * First let's assume for the sake of the argument, that love potion, Veritaserum and Polyjuice potion in Harry Potter each had coverage in secondary sources (as has been shown above/previously), but not enough to have a separate article each. In such a case WP:GNG suggests: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Or in this case: create a parent article like "Potions in Harry Potter". Now I don't say that merging to Magic in Harry Potter could not also be a good solution, though I am not convinced it would be the best one. But I do think that WP:GNG does not support wholesale deletion in such a case (with loss of all the secondary sources).
 * Second, the topic "Potions in Harry Potter" is discussed at some length e.g. in The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter and A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World as found by Cunard. Of course there the majority - though not all - of the material is plot-summary. But other secondary sources like "Muggle Magic: Learning Through Play in Harry Potter's World" and others provide the relevant real-world additions. Taking these together to create a reasonalbe stand-alone article again in my opinion is not disregarding WP:GNG but looking at why we have these requirements in the first place. Daranios (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think there's flexibility in that wording, I can only say you're blatantly wrong. It very clearly supplies examples of two specific sources and makes no mention of some nebulous overall coverage, allowing the combination of several trivial sources to equal one good source or some such. While no guideline is set in stone, I take that as a very strange interpretation not conforming to anything stated in it. And that basically covers the rest of your argument. There is no "taking these together" when accounting for GNG. There are good sources and poor sources. Poor sources may have some contextual utility in the case that there are plenty of good sources, but poor sources on their own do not make for an article that meets GNG. TTN (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2020 (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.