Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Wizarding War


 * 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, in-universe original research. I am willing to move the contents of the page to userspace for anyone who wants to transwiki. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Wizarding War

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The phrase "Second Wizarding War" is purely some user's invention, so the article can't stand at its current title. Apart from moving it to "Second conflict between Voldemort and Order of the Phoenix in the Harry Potter series," there's nothing to do but delete and/or merge this sprawling plot summary. Deltabeignet 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Google search returns over 1,200,000 results: Search of "Second Wizarding War": 2,510,000 results Search of "Second Wizarding War Harry Potter": 1,200,000 results
 * Clearly this is not "purely some user's invention". -- User: (talk • contribs • count ) 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A Google search of (with quotes) "Second Wizarding War" and "Harry Potter" returns 901 results. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Take out Wikipedia and you get 751. Cut out blogs, forums and wikis, you have 275, with only 28 being unique.-Wafulz 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the simple fact that we can provide sources we prove that the name was not the invention of the original author, therefore making this AfD irrelevant. But in case that is not enough, a concrete reference is made in these three sources:


 * Final Potter Book - MSNBC.com
 * HPL:The Death Eaters
 * Battle at the Department of Mysteries -- User: (talk • contribs • count ) 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So you know, two of those are fan encyclopedias, which are not considered reliable. Then again, the title is probably the least important part of this article.-Wafulz 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not this again! If you don't agree with deletion, could you at least comment on the title? Deltabeignet 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it might be better located at Wars in the Harry Potter series or Battles in the Harry Potter series; of course, the information is very in-universe now; considering the book just came out that will be cleaned up in time. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the title, unless it's now against policy to in order?First Wizarding War, Second Wizarding War. Simple, as far as i'm concerned. Killswitch Engage 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is against policy to make up stuff - see WP:OR. There is too much fancruft with no basis in the published novels around at the moment. Sophia  04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Go to Wal-Mart. Buy all the books. Read them if thats not too hard. You'll read everything in the books. Unless the officially released books don't count??? If you must, just move contents to a page called Conflicts in Harry Potter. Killswitch Engage 04:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Excessive plot summary under a fanmade name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; Original research unless you can source the fact that independent sources call it that. That's bound to be difficult since that term does not even appear in the books!  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Might as well. While your doing this I'm gonna go recommend the Battle of Isengard be deleted. And The Clone Wars. Killswitch Engage 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not disrupt to make a point. The examples you gave are different since the names actually are used by the fiction in question, and referred to as such (one, for that matter, is the title of a whole movie).  If you feel the article should be kept, there is nothing to gain by attempting sarcasm this way.  Try to provide policy or guideline to support your position, instead.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' I don't ever remember anyone saying "Hey, we just made it through the Battle of Isengard", or "we are fighting in the Clone Wars. Please point me to this so called reference to the use of the names in the books, oh wise one. Killswitch Engage 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's referred to as the Battle of Isengard in both the relevant parts of Two Towers and in retrospect in Return of the King, and the first reference ever to the Clone Wars is Obi-Wan Kenobi mentioning them by name when he notes that Luke's father battled in them. (Plus, you know, the game, animated series, and two comic series about them named "Clone Wars" or some variation.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ... yeah, what he said. (Jinx!) :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, LOTR is a bit too far but it is, at the very least, the title of one of the chapters. You need only go as far as Episode IV to get "clone wars"; just listen to the first exchange in Obi-Wan's house.  Luke: "You served in the Clone Wars"?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, alright, but couldn't we just move the stuff instead of delete it? It is notable as content and deserves a page, just under a different name. Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Attempted sarcasm? Do they give Nobel Prizes for attemted chemistry?:) Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Move it where? Each book article has at least 10K of plot summary, plus the articles on every single event and every single character and every single place and every single thing. It's just plain redundant, as it's more excessive plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see on this page on the Lexicon, "although these larger battles have not been named in the books, we will refer to them with names to identify them in the Lexicon." They're just calling some battles by their own names for purposes of ease; we can't do that here on Wikipedia. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you agree that this is only an argument for renaming?
 * I have added my opinion on the naming only. I am choosing to abstain on the keeping or deleting of the article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Coren. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fictional event that's lacking "significant coverage from independent (real world) sources" Corpx 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Note For those claiming that the article title does not show up in the book, I direct you to Chapter 38 of Order of the Phoenix which is entitled, "The Second War Begins." Further, the Harry Potter Lexicon uses the phrases "First Wizarding War" and "Second Wizarding War" in several places. (No, I am not going to go hunt them all down for you. I have better things to do.) While the Lexicon is a fan-run site with no direct affiliation with J.K. Rowling, Rowling has said on her official site that she has referred to the information on the Lexicon about series canon while writing in order to keep facts straight and ensure continuity. So, now that I seem to have settled the particular issue that seems to be nagging most of the 'Delete' voters (that the war to which the article title refers does in fact appear within the books as much as the Battle of Isengard, etc. appear in their respective works of fiction), we can leave well enough alone.LaMenta3 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Rowling used the Lexicon, that doesn't make it not a fansite, nor does it keep this from being Yet Another Redundant Plot Summary Dump. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but it might make it a reliable source. Not all fansites are necessarily unreliable. JulesH 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lexicon is also the source of the timeline on the DVDs that was approved for inclusion by Rowling. (Third heading down the page, "The Official Timeline.) LaMenta3 17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lexicon is a fansite pure and simple and is not canon. The fact that JK throws the fans a bone by saying that she looked at it makes no difference. Most importantly, she did not say that she used the Lexicon on anything related to the issue at hand in this AfD, including the phrase "Second Wizarding War." Savidan 23:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * REGARDLESS of whether or not the Lexicon is a fansite, it still remains that Rowling herself (through OotP Ch. 38) has referred to this event as "The Second War". At the very least, this should be a brief synopsis of the war.  A lengthy article is not a necessity. Hans404 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per LaMenta3. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Then all we should do is move the page from Second Wizarding War to The Second War (Harry Potter). Killswitch Engage 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Shorten. I agree with LaMenta3 but this article is way too long.  Comment: Where's all the made up "stuff" anyway?  The details in this article are directly from the books, so the fact that this article is based on so called "made up information" cannot be a reason to delete this article.— *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡   06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Taken directly from the book," which in this case means that it's a chunk of plot summary, with a dollop of personal interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Why is everyone so persistant on killing this article? I don't see the problem. It's not like this site is going to get overloaded and die. -- MisterRandom2 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely not trying to sound like a smartass, but see WP:HARMLESS. Corpx 06:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * GAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! Do you hate this article that much??? It's an officially refered-to-event with enough content to exist on its own. -- MisterRandom2 06:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't have enough content to exist on its own. That's the whole point. It's Yet Another redundant article retelling the plot of the Harry Potter books. How many times do we need to rearrange the same seven stories? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it DOES have enough content, actually. -- MisterRandom2 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out the non-plot-summary content in the article, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that these arguments would apply to essentially all of the Harry Potter articles that aren't directly about the books. Are you voting for the deletion of all the character pages, the page on the Ministry, on magic, etc.? Mrobfire 20:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of those articles also need to be deleted or merged, yes. There's a huge walled garden of in-universe HP articles, and it's high time something was done about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a lot of OR here. I've read all seven books and I'd never heard of the "Second Wizarding War" until I came here. PageantUpdater 08:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has more than enough content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.93.247 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per LaMenta3's argument. I agree with Killswitch though - it should be renamed, "The Second War (Harry Potter)". —Kanamekun 09:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing but a plot summary with original research.-Wafulz 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Weak) Keep, shorten, and rename to The Second War (Harry Potter) (the canonical name from Order of the Phoenix). It's certainly a major plot spanning the last three books (like Horcruxes in the last two), so notability is fine. But the plot summaries are rather unweidly. Will (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Article covers a major plot of the story that deserves treatment in a centralized location. I agree with Sceptre that it should be renamed The Second War (Harry Potter). This is how it is referred to in the novels. Mrobfire 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As Wikipedia is not a fan site or a cliff-notes substitue. Slavlin 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT as an extended plot summary. This duplicates information already existing in other articles. EyeSereneTALK 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of ability to write an out-of-universe perspective. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the grammar is totally incorrigible!!. Krishvanth 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, poor grammar is not a reason to delete. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Good grief. Strategy analysis of a fictional battle, and nary a reference. Entire text is essentially one huge plot summary or original research (as is the title) in any case. Length of content is entirely irrelevant for keeping an article, if that content is not worth keeping. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - vast chunk of plot summary with a crust of original research. &spades;P M C&spades; 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keepper LaMenta3Ravenmasterq 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since other fictional unniverses are extended the same liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.14.60 (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mrobfire
 * I have difficulties for a clear position here. Sure, plots are not recommended in separate articles, but there is no sources really to support the elements. I would say merge (although likely big chunks are already in the various Potter articles/films and character articles, which would make just some duplications over several articles. The lack of sources leans me more towards the Weak Delete although some elements that are located elsewhere (which is doubtful considering there are lots of repetitions amongst various articles) can be transferred to the appropriate articles on films/books/characters or any other Potter related articles. Oh and I forgot there is this too.--JForget 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Weak) Keep and rename to something more like The Wizarding Wars or something similar. Describes content merititorious enough for its own article page, but the lack of reference citations leads to the weak categorization. Side note: These constant AfD nominations are getting ridiculous. Reputation 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You say that there's "content meritorious for its own article page." Can you point out to me the parts of this article that aren't plot summary or personal interpretation? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is a plot summary, yes. However, it provides clarification of the "Wizarding Wars" that occur in the series without having the need to go through multiple articles/novels. That is why I classified my opinion as weak, as well. Reputation 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not reprint the plot of stories so that people don't have to read the stories. That's the heart of Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, nicely proven. Reputation 00:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article is very important to the Harry Potter section on wikipedia and is the only article that really summarizes the wars on Harry Potter. User:Nationalboard.
 * Each of the articles and films has a lengthy plot summary. We also have articles on each place, person, and thing. This is redundant with each of those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, what would happen if this article was NOT deleted? -- ChromeZero 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — ChromeZero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I dunno. We'd probably have to rename it, depending on the sources. Probably, I'd break it up and merge the chunks of plot summary into the novel articles and redirect it to OOTP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to The Second War (Harry Potter) per LaMenta3. NawlinWiki 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep its important too Harry Potter fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.51.14.14 (talk • contribs) — 76.51.14.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep or move to Harry Potter conflicts. Brisv e  gas  03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Referenced in the book 5 via a chapter title and the plot lines of book 6 and 7 follow this conflict.  While the title I will agree is unencyclopedic and should be changed it should not be one of the bases for deletion.  I suggestion would be to one change it to Second War (Harry Potter) and Two Wikify it and give it a decent copy edit.  I would also strongly sugggest that all other articles on the Second War's battle be merged into this one to reduce any possible redunancy.  there thats my two cents feel free to disagree :)  Æon  Insanity Now!  05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would still be a violation of WP:NOTE due to the lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. The Second Wizarding War was the backstory to the entire Harry Potter series, and the series is discussed at great length in many independent publications. Thus, the backstory is notable. I don't have any refs handy, but I'm sure that this argument could be backed up. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, given that the article is summarizing plot points from several works, verifiability isn't a problem because one can use Self-published sources to reference facts. I'm sure that secondary sources can be found in time, though. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must be misunderstanding. The policy on self-published sources (that you even link to) says explicitly "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." In what way, then, can these be used for verifiability? I'll concede that it does provide for their use, if "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" [emphasis at source] &mdash; but still, it warns against even that. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't flow your argument there Corpx. Can you explain how it violates the Notibility policy in that reguards?   Æon  Insanity Now!  05:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment was based on the lack of notability for this current article, because there was/is no significant coverage established from (real world) independent sources. Corpx 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename - Rename to fall in line with a consensus on a proper title. If this was never referred to as the Second Wizarding War in the books, then I do agree it ought to be renamed.  However, the article itself must be preserved (note: I support it remaining as one entity, not a shoddy merger in with a generic Potter conflicts article)  The article itself is of good stock and overall good quality with minor issues which would merely require a rewrite.  We already have a good example of a fictional war's representation on Wikipedia, reference War of the Ring which in itself is not greatly notable, and is an article moderately detailed, written based upon the text of the story and devoid of secondary sources (otherwise known as Original Research if this page's interpreters of original research be followed).  This being the case, and applying the deletion rationales presented on this page, then the War of the Ring page must be immediately and without delay deleted out of concern for even enforcement of no original research, notability, and plot summary reasons.  I see no clamor over the War of the Ring article's grievous infractions of these same principles.  As it pertains to no original research codes, it is asinine to wait for a published secondary source merely to corroborate a summary any reader of the pertinent portion of the Potter series can verify.  Notability should not be at issue in this case as this plot line has transferred itself into a multi-billion dollar enterprise and is now a part of a series of films.  If this needs to be rewritten to ensure it abides by expanded plot summary so that it offers, "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" then do so.  This is eminently possible, if not easy to achieve.  Auror 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a redundant article and is already covered elsewhere. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. Also, dubious title. Madhava 1947 (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename this is a well-written article but also provides comprehensive facts about the second wizarding war. Skhatri2005 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (rename if you'd like)  - It seems a bit malicious and ill-thought out to delete the entire article because of its title. In the the Order of the Phoenix it is referred to as the Second War (see last chapter Second War Begins). Perhaps we should rename to that? -- User: (talk • contribs • count ) 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Second War (Harry Potter)"? The name shouldn't be a problem, not when there's a convenient move button right on top of the page. --Kizor 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep What's the big deal if there are individual pages on the books. This is a chronology of the major battles and events in the books.Rockules318 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not everyone can recite the events documented in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a Harry Potter fan club that you can't get in if you can't recite the books word for word.  •Malinaccier•  T / C  21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per LaMenta3 Lemon flash  talk  23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - until someone at least asks JK Rowling for an alternative name for the page - this sounds like a perfectly reasonable title.
 * Keep per above comments. --musicpvm 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is plentiful information here that provide good facts. And this article is not a plot summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, content from other books in the series is included. Nazgul533 talk contribs 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)\
 * Not a single one of the above eight votes (and that's what they are) address the WP:NOR and WP:NOT issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, voting is evil, we don't vote on Wikipedia Æon  Insanity Now!  03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A Man In Black was commenting that the above were votes, though, and not !votes (pieces of discussion). --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can never remember which is which. --Kizor 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the deletion of the article is concerned, however, I disagree with it completely, not only because it is a centralised article discussing a major series of conflicts (which spans several books) within a fictional universe that sets in motion all other events within said universe and is thus rather notable, but also because it has the potential to evolve into something much more than a simple plot summary. Besides those reasons, it is, in my opinion, too soon to make a decision as important as the deletion of an article while the whole category of articles is so unstable. I mean, a week has not passed since Deathly Hallows was published, a little patience would not harm any one. So, what could be done to save the article? And now that I think of it, we could generalise it and also add short sections about all conflicts, including the Giant Wars and the Goblin rebellions. "Conflicts" is a rather embracing term. All in all, I believe the article should be kept, or at least the discussion about its deletion (but not renaming) postponed until the situation is more stable. I hope there is no problem with my post being so long. Waltham, The Duke of 07:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename I suggest that we cool down a little and think of the situation we have in our hands first. The most pressing matter that pertains to this article is the name. Personally, I do not mind it, but the evidence shows clearly that it is unacceptable, and thus needs to change. My preferred solution would be to move it to "Conflicts in Harry Potter" (see below for more details).
 * 1) For one thing, it could be an article about "Conflicts in Harry Potter" in general, something which would allow the article to address both Wars; since there is not enough material for the first War to create an article that is not too short, this could be an acceptable arrangement. Apart from that, the first war is not covered in the books in a linear fashion and so the information about it would not be a simple plot summary; instead, it would be information gathered from all the books, but still not constituting original research.
 * 1) Many notable writers and editorialists have discussed and/or written on various aspects of the Potterverse, including the Wizarding Wars. Quoting their opinion about the significance of these wars within the fictional universe of Harry Potter, about the possible reasons for their development in the way they have turned out, as well as about how plausible and real they look, would be acceptable published work and would not qualify as original research. Mind you that the series has just been concluded; much more such works are bound to be published in the following months, or even weeks.
 * 2) Apart from the books, there are also the films. Only Order of the Phoenix has been finished, but the other two films are bound to come, and the portrayal of the Wizarding Wars in the silver screen would be an interesting addition to the article. We all know how much is left behind, after all. And again, the importance of the Wizarding Wars would make a section about their portrayal very different from anything that can be found in any of the articles about the books or films (plus, it will be centralised).
 * And, of course, the spelling, syntax, and grammar of the article should be immaculate, and its structure perfect. I know the opposite would be no reason to delete an article, but still.
 * Comment. You call that a long post when it doesn't even have its own subheadings? :P Don't worry about the length. --Kizor 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, rename and shorten It's a useful article covering a great deal of ground, but there is a lot of crossover with individual book, film and character articles. A lot of stuff could bve removed and linked.  Also needs some serious referencing. --Worm 11:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not convinced that all of the material which has some basis in JK Rowlings books could be much more efficiently covered in the articles for the books. The battle templates seem to be more of an opportunity to introduce fancruft and original research (in the form of deciding who "won" a "battle" and what the "causus belli" was) than anything else. I also suspect that the metastructure of this article itself is original research as these events are not clearly demarcated from the rest of the plot as the "Second Wizarding War." Merge is just an excuse to keep this content up longer; the plot summaries for all seven books are ample, and will be well-written without this as a guide. Despite claims of some keep votes, I have not seen a single out-of-universe source for this which is further proof that it should be covered in the same manner as all plot summaries. Examples of other fictional battles are misleading because those works are fundamentally different from the HP series; JK gives far less detail and does not publish extra in-universe items with the intent of filling these out as "wars" or "battles" in the same way that Tolkien, Lucas, etc. do. I would also suggest Harry Potter Wiki or Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter for such articles that have zero out of universe value. Savidan 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Thorough article on a legit subject. -- Voldemore 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. this is the major theme of the fourth through seventh books of Harry Potter.  Valley 2 city 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, move and edit. The conflict between parts of the wizarding world and in particular between Harry and Voldemort is integral to the series. Saving the world doesn't count? I would move to British Wizarding Civil War (Harry Potter), since there's no indication it moved outside of Britain more than once or twice, and provide a general review of the background to the war (issues of blood purity, class, etc.), then present the first civil war and aftermath, calm, second civil war and aftermath. Most of the content is good, just prune for unsubstantiated statements.--Aaronhumes 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Colorful suggested titles like this one should be a good indication of the non-canonicity of most of the content of this article. The fact that its hard to agree on a title is not a coincidence; JK Rowling did not intend for these events to be seen as separate from the overall plot of the series. Savidan 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * which is exactly why we should be re-arranging events and presenting them in a way which makes more sense to readers. No one said Rowling wanted her books to be obvious, but it is our job to present information clearly. Sandpiper 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your proposed title, British Wizarding Civil War (Harry Potter). Obviously, you simply made this up.  What was wrong with The Second War (Harry Potter), which is the proper name, given by Rowling herself in the fifth book? — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡   02:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is completely in-universe and provides no indication that the subject has been covered by reliable third-party publications.  17Drew 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment While I agree this article appears to be nothing more than a plot dump, the argument pointed out above concerning the LOTR series is also quite relevant. The Battle of Isengard should also be deleted, because it too is nothing more than plot summary.  The same can be said of any article involving parts of a book, or parts of a "universse", including anything Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time etc...Kilroy55 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm going for keep on this, because it does something rather more useful than a plot description of just one book. The HP series is really one very long book in installments, and its plot ought to be treated in the same way, as a whole, or in related chunks drawn together from different books. For completeness, and for the benefit of actual encyclopedia users wanting to look up an individual book, each book article needs a plot description, but it is also important to draw together the plot as a whole. I am also not hung up on the title issue. Having read the books, the existing title is entirely understandable and consistent with references within the books. There is no reason a title needs to slavishly copy a reference in a book rather than being descriptive. Sandpiper 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL --Action Jackson IV 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which gives the classic example of something which is useful yet would not be appropriate to include as a telephone directory, or similar list. This is nothing of the sort.  Sandpiper 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out the non-plot-summary content in the article, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sandpiper. --hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While useful, informative, and perhaps even interesting, this is really nothing more than a fancrufty essay, suffering from WP:OR and WP:V issues. Hence, strong delete. Don't get me wrong - it would be a star article on a Harry Potter wiki, and I admire the passion and the thought involved in the creation of this article, but Wikipedia is not Sparknotes, and until we have decades of crticial hindsight, this is just as notable as, say, the war between Freedonia and Sylvania in Duck Soup. It may well be a central theme to the book(s) in question, but divorced from those books, it's just another plot element in another book series that some people read and some people liked. I really hope that the closing admin keeps in mind that AfD is not a vote, and that no matter how many people are arguing keep, if those arguments are simply impassioned retellings of WP:ILIKEIT, they are inherently poor arguments. --Action Jackson IV 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a huge difference in notability, however. I do not believe it is fruitful to compare a single film with a heptalogy that has tens of millions of readers and has already spawned five films. In addition, the central theme of Harry Potter spans several different books and thus cannot be analysed in the separate book articles as easily the central theme of a single novel or film can. Waltham, The Duke of 08:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; you pretty much shot down your own argument, there. Analyzing themes is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia.  If independent reliable sources have done this analysis, then talking about it with proper citations might be appropriate&mdash; but even then probably not in a separate article.  Notability requires significant coverage from reliable sources.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he doesn't. It is important to distinguish between analysis of a source which gives rise to original ideas, and analysis which creates a well ordered presentation of existing information. This is the latter, and as such research that consists of collecting and organising material...is encouraged, though I see someone has been hacking away at that fundamental necessity for writing an encyclopedia. Sandpiper 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An analysis that arranged cherry-picked fictional events into an entirely new narrative is original research. Plus, this is still all plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it but change the title and expand it to include wizard wars in general in the Harry Potter world. O.B. Haive 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and a violation of WP:NOT and WP:WAF. --Farix (Talk) 14:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete KEEP, this page is the key information of books combined into one conveint article, this should should stay.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; too much key information. 64.91.201.195 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep; undoubtedly the article needs work, and maybe a new title, but not deletion Tphi 12:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Title makes sense. Far too much information to delete. Well-written. -- Thefreemarket 14:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is essentially an extended plot summary. With Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince we simply moved the extended plot summary and other such material to Wikibooks. Is there a good reason not to do so here? Phil Sandifer 15:45, 28 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.