Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd 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.  Majorly  (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation here, please ask me if you need any more details (or correct me if I'm wrong ^_^) Thanks,  Majorly  (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry Potter (3rd Nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an AfD relist as directed at this DRV. There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Harry Potter for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Notability. The article also fails as a list, such as not including unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources per Criteria for inclusion in lists and not adhering to that criteria with reliable source material. With AfD #1 closed after ten hours and AfD #2 closed because AfD #1 was not taken to DRV, please keep this Afd #3 open for at least five days. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * References alone doesn't make something notable, or let it pass WP:NOT. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is the only thing that makes something notable. Reliable independent media coverage is the definitions of notability in Wikipedia. Voting by Wikipedians is 100% subjective, voting by media outlets in deciding to cover a topic is an objective measure. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. As noted in the first deletion debate, there are secondary sources which can (and should) be cited.  But even if there weren't, I think the primary sources would be sufficient. To quote from WP:PSTS: "...there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." I think this applies. -- B figura  (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems absolutely clear-cut to me. GlassCobra 04:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per Bfigura, provided individual entries are purely descriptive and there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Dbromage  [Talk] 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete fancruft. Every little spell will be listed? who else could have an interest in this article but Harry Potter fans?. Isnt there a harry potter oriented wiki around?, if so, this article should belong there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs).
 * Comment Right, because, you know, there aren't any Harry Potter fans. Nope. Definitely not millions and millions of them from around the world. As Alethiophile exemplified, Harry Potter is a global phenomenon. GlassCobra 04:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But is there any evidence Spells in Harry Potter are a global phenomenon? The notability of the work does not extend to every facet of a fictional world described in that work. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is some evidence, but I admit to having not yet found any secondary sources discussing "Spells in Harry Potter" as a general topic: Avada Kedavra in Google News, accio and "harry potter" in Google News, Alohomora in Google News, Expelliarmus in Google News, Expecto patronum in Google News, Wingardium Leviosa in Google News. Ichormosquito 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wikia. In other words, export from Wikipedia, import to Wikia, reconnect all the links. Make this a fully connected process, and the readers won't even notice a difference. Great info, but it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. The Harry Potter Wikia works just like us, it's run by the community, and since it's specific, more control specifically to the HP editors. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions.  — Dbromage  [Talk]  03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikia is not "just like us", it is a profit making business. Brandon97 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cut the bullshit. Wikia is not a non-profit company, and that is all. Organizations and companies that are not listed as non-profit are not evil. All content generated by Wikia, shared by Wikia, and so on, is 100% free to use for any reason whatsoever. We can even take content back from Wikia and put it on Wikipedia. I'm really tired of this idea that an organization is bad if they don't list themselves as non-profit. Wikia is an excellent project, and is supported by the Wikipedia community and vise-versa as a supporter of GFDL content. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, transwiki per Ned Scott, or, at most, merge with Magic (Harry Potter). WP:WAF says that in-universe information needs to be backed up with real-world sourcing to make it encyclopedic. There needs to be information written specifically about the spells, or it isn't notable enough to have its own separate article. Furthermore, notability is not inherited. Just because Harry Potter is notable doesn't mean that the spells in the books are. bwowen talk•contribs 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously. I direct you to the first and second noms, whose keep votes really summarize my argument. This is notable. Just about everyone who's read the books is shouting these spells at one another. If you can have articles about obscure porn stars who nobody's ever heard of, one of which I AfD'd and got a spasm of Keeps and a one-hour close, then you can have articles listing the spells in a series that almost nobody's not heard of. Somebody Else's Problem (aka Alethiophile) Ask me why 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a fine article. It might be made better by a short description of the current Harry Potter cultural phenomena--this would give it sufficient outside sources and place it in its proper place of current real, not just fictional, world significance.
 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Dbromage  [Talk] 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That is not policy, but only a guideline.  Useight 05:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not a matter of what people are saying, it's a matter of coverage by credible sources. bwowen talk•contribs 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Try using good judgement, if obscure fancruft articles seem to be the bane of wikipedia, why should this be the exception?.Kessingler 04:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Bane of the encyclopedia"? Surely, those are vandals, or our justified reputation on articles like "Palestinian Liberation Front", or the inherent instability and increasing difficulty of maintaining quality? This is a matter of specifying the bounds on how much readers should be able to learn, and if tightening those bounds seems like a comparable issue, then there's something seriously wrong with perspective and I have to suggest a re-evaluation of priorities and probably a trip outside to look at the clouds. --Kizor 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Though i hate to be doing forum-like comments here, i must say that although your comment seems passionate, its an argumental falacy as we are talking here about a promoting a minor topic on a fiction novel. That has little to do with "bounds on how much readers should be able to learn", but more with the obsene amount of "trash knoledge" [sic] that abounds in wikipedia, you name the multi-billion dollars bubblegum franchise out there, its [sic] got its own article based on nothing but merchandising here in wikipedia... and it has probably survived 6 proposals for deletion because of poor judgement on behalf of the fans (we have special dedicated wikis for a reasson). Though there are many issues and problems in wikipedia, there's sadly far more focus on nerd articles than in real important academic issues (for any doubt, please see "Wikigroanning").Kessingler 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh! I've long wanted to talk to someone who thinks that disproportionate coverage of different subjects is actually harmful to Wikipedia. It could prove really educational for both parties. Can we discuss this in more detail elsewhere? --Kizor 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As previously stated in the DRV, the spells are collectively a very major plot element. I'm a firm proponent of improving over deleting, and there have been mentions of several books that can serve as proper references in the article on top of the improvement that's already been occuring. These books include The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek and Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert. One user has already stated that he has a copy of the latter book; I'm sure he'd be willing to help source the article if he weren't so busy trying to defend it from deletion. As per XDanielx's excellent list: "There are articles about spells in Harry Potter, and there are lists of spells from Harry Potter (external links), but there are (probably) no articles which discuss lists of spells in Harry Potter. In this case, following WP:N, we do not treat lists of spells in Harry Potter as the topic, but rather Spells in Harry Potter." Further, "just as exceptional claims require exceptional sources, mediocre sources can suffice for claims which are trivially true, such as 'the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter story.'" The uproar over the lack of sources for facts that anyone with eyes can plainly see is totally unfounded. This is a clear choice to me. GlassCobra 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of sources, we have a lack of real world information on these individual spells. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the existence of movies and their special effects makes at least some of that doable. I bet somebody could find Wingardium Leviosa's special effects documentary.  A song too?  And of course, it'd also be possible to connect the spells to works in other literature.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uber mighty keep. The argument regarding verifiability seems ludicrous to me - the information is factual, uncontentious, and comprehensively substantiated by multiple uninterested secondary sources. We do not need a Harvard Law Review article to establish that the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter stories. The references listed in external links do a particularly fine job already. A topic which is intimately related to a story that sold 325+ million books is notable. I gave a more comprehensive spiel which I won't repeat on why I think this article does pass WP:N on the DRV, but whether I was correct or not is really just a trivial technicality. If it were true that the article in question failed the minutia of WP:N, WP:FICT, or whatever similar policy, then that policy should be ignored without hesitation. The topic does not need explicit criteria, because there are no ambiguities any larger than an archaeon. There are a finite number of spells involved in the Harry Potter stories, and we can identify names and descriptions for nearly all of them. This is clearly an issue of virtually no relevance to the potential of the article and if it's even worth discussing then that should be done on it's talk page. — xDanielx T/C 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Ned Scott and WP:FICT. Will also support delete or merge consensus. &mdash; Deckiller 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be a consensus to keep in previous discussions, so I suggest solving any problems on the talk page instead. Really, working with other editors is important, not just using AFD over and over again. FrozenPurpleCube 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! Come on, this is Wikipedia! Why work with other people when you can just delete things? It's so much easier! GlassCobra 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Transwiki An encyclopedia is not a fan site.  This, to me, is no different than a list of cars in or list of maps in .   This stuff belongs in a fan site/specialized encyclopedia.   Corpx 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have to dash, but suffice it to say that we are a specialized encyclopedia. --Kizor 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, that refers to law encyclopedias/medical ones, not ones created and edited by fans of a work of fiction. If what you're saying is the case, there'd be no need for the transwiki function here Corpx 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to say "law and medical only." I also believe that we have no need for a transwiki function (WP:NOTPAPER), but this is neither the time nor place for that. GlassCobra 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to the free availability of the media-wiki software, anyone can create a "specialized encyclopedia", but that does not mean all the contents should be merged into the mothership Corpx 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think WP:IHATEIT is really a strong argument for removal. The required sources exist (as I've noted above). The only real question seems to be: does this meet WP:N? Per User:Ichormosquito's note below, I think it does.  -- B figura  (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ichormosquito's keep reasoning is based on sources that have yet to be found (through 3 AFDs) and is contrary to what WP:FICT is saying.  My reason to delete this article is the lacking of real world notability (among others), not WP:IDONTLIKEIT Corpx 06:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that more secondary sources would be great, but if I'm reading WP:PSTS correctly, they're not strictly necessary in this case. But since I'm lacking a New York Times article devoted to spells in Harry Potter, I suppose I'd have to argue that the survival of this article through 2 AfD's suggests a consensus on notability. (A weak argument, I confess). -- B figura (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used to cite information, even though that practice is looked down upon by some editors.  However, primary sources cannot establish notability.   As for the first two AFDs,  they look to me like a barrage of WP:ILIKEITs and WP:ITSUSEFULs and both were speedy closed (inappropriately too, in my opinion) Corpx 06:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to clarify: WP:FICT was substantially changed between the first and second AfD. My argument is based on the assumption that editors haven't had time to adjust.  Ichormosquito 06:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I don't think editors should underestimate the importance of this AfD. The guidelines at WP:FICT have recently undergone some changes, and I think this debate will influence whether those changes are realistically applicable. The question to answer: should editors be faced with a heavy burden to produce real-world information, when an article's subject is already a significant component to an extremely notable work? I myself have no idea. I think the shift toward real-information is a good one; but on the other hand, we shouldn't ghettoize articles too hastily. According to the current WP:FICT, an article should be kept if there exists an obvious potential to produce real-world sources for it. It also states that the onus should be on the article's defenders to find these sources. Although little or no real-world content has been produced thus far, I have no doubt it exists. I ask the closing admin to allow the article a stay and to strongly encourage that editors find reliable, real-world content directly related to Spells in Harry Potter within the month, before the inevitable 4th AfD. Ichormosquito 05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per the many good reasons listed above. --S.dedalus 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)**
 * Weak Keep per the reasons listed above, esp. User:Ichormosquito ---  The Bethling (Talk) 05:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, per previous three debates (AFD, AFD2, DRV) it is obvious there is no consensus to delete this, and the only reason it is relisted anyway is process wonkery.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both of the previous AfDs were closed prematurely, as decided in the DRV. This isn't going to be speedy kept, and will be up a minimum of five days. bwowen talk•contribs 09:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the DRV was also closed prematurely. Does that strike anyone as funny? "I'm going to prematurely close this because things may not be prematurely closed".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not evaluating the article at all, but instead on a technicality that we had 3 AfD pages formatted. Two AfDs were closed before relevant discussion could be made, and that, in no freaking way, is an indication that something should be kept. Remember Elonka's RFA, where the first few days she had well over 90% support? The existence of a flaw in the AFD process does not support keeping this article, and should never prevent us from having a proper discussion on the matter, where more people have time to give input. Furthermore, it's not a vote, and arguments based on policy and guidelines are generally given more weight than ILIKEITS. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, speedy keep. Shocking though the curt attitude was, on reflection, I cannot disagree with Radiant!'s analysis. --Kizor 08:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very very weak keep for now. This discussion is essentially a continuation of AFD1, AFD2 and DRV where there was no clear consensus. I understand the feelings of the Potter fans but they have to provide secondary sources and assert notability. Thin Arthur 08:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve as I and others have continued to state, this article is not worthy of deletion. What I do not understand is why we keep having AfDs and DRVs that end up with the same results. Instead of arguing about it we should fix up the problems we have instead (you can list them here). Just keep in mind you deletionists that there are sources we can put here. Will that make you happy? THE  DARK LORD  TROMBONATOR 10:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and gut any OR on etymology. Spells being you know a major element of HP, having an article on spells might actually make sense! Having already been noted by others that there's reliable sources that can be used, one should note that notability is the pillar of Wikipedia inclusion citeria, and there can be no doubt spells in HP is notable. For the quoters of WP:FICT, I quote just one point while you use it to debate away in this AfD - "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". When the debate turns into what should be included in the article and how it should be presented, I encourage editors to participate in the article's talk page. KTC 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: magic is certainly a central aspect of Harry Potter, and that's why there there's Magic (Harry Potter), but there's nothing notable, in the real world, about the spells themselves.  Mi re ma re  18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response To say something I've been saying, we can't merge it just because it's magic. All objects and potions would have to be merged into Magic (Harry Potter) including central plot aspects such as the Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows, and yet, there is no argument to there existence. Are they not essentially plot details? Are they not magic? There are, but no would would dare take them down. There has also been significant amount of work done to all of these articles and moving them to a place that would do nothing short of destroy them would be pretty insulting. While I don't think that's a real factor, it should be taken into account. Therequiembellishere 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I agree that it would be unfortunate to lose anything that people have worked hard on, but that isn't necessary. Anything in the article that isn't already there could be copied to the Harry Potter Wiki (and probably should be anyway). But when it comes to merging, we just have to be selective and choose the most importasnt things for inclusion and discard that which isn't. This is, after all, exactly what the editiors of any other fiction-related articles have to do.  Mi re ma re  22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Three nominations in one month... My goodness. The reasons for wanting deletion haven't changed. They boil down to "I don't like it" and "I don't understand it". Some have noted a supposed lack of sources. The sources could be improved, but that is not a good enough reason for deletion. The reasons for keeping are that it is clearly notable to anyone with a pulse. It is clearly useful, and a significant part of the Harry Potter series. I've summarized my thoughts twice before. My opinion hasn't changed. Continual nomination doesn't change the fact that this is a notable topic and it should stay. nut-meg 12:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are these fabled multiply third party, independent sources I keep on hearing about? David Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of these "fabled" sources have been listed here for you. You could also do something crazy like an Amazon search and find them yourself. But the proper thing to do here is give time for improvement of the sources. Nominating it every week and decrying the lack of sources is not helpful, and points to an underlying reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. nut-meg 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sorcerer's Companion and The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter have been mentioned once or twice. The Beacham's Sourcebook, Exploring Harry Potter, seems like a worthwhile read as well. As for the etymologies, I maintain that the bulk is in intelligible Latin and that giving editors' translations of foreign words together with the original forms is acceptable from for references, let alone these, but it helps that a moment's incompetent journaling found Verbatim, a language quarterly, and Harry Potter Through the Looking-Glass, a scholarly essay. These feature loads and add some background information and context, to boot. An user has already noted that he has one of the first two books and that it works for this purpose, and sworn to get on that. Give it a while, AfDs very seldom fix articles. Often they keep that from happening. (Just an essay, but chances are you've seen that.) --Kizor 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There are several non-fiction Harry Potter books on the market. Brandon97 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but they are not the base of this article. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, now. Earlier this year I found sources for an AfD'd webcomic - Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet - that swung a 2-3 vote to delete to a 6-0 vote to keep, that despite the fact that they had in no way been the basis of the article. Integrating them is a matter for cleanup, if of anything, in no circumstances one of deletion. --Kizor 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per WP:FICTION. The article does not contain sufficient real-world content. It's merely a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete or transwikki to the Harry Potter Wiki. None of the keepers seem to acknowledge the point the nominator makes: This article needs real world secondary sources to establish its notability. That it is notable "in-universe" is not in any doubt, but we live in the real world, not inside the Harry Potter universe. Notability can only be establish by referencing out-of-universe (i.e. real world) sources. I also don't buy the argument that real world sources "must be out there/can be found". If so, why has nothing been done about it before this 3rd nomination? Editorially, the correct procedure is to trim items that don't demonstrate real world notability. When, as a result of such trimming, the article would effectively be blank, the correct procedure is then to delete. Lastly, a small appeal to the closing admin: please weigh the strength of the arguments based on the reasoning presented and do not use the weight of numbers.  Zun aid  ©  ®  15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that these sources haven't been added before the third nomination is that this is the third nomination in as many weeks. Someone has a mission and they aren't going to stop until this article is gone. I imagine the reason its been nominated over and over again is that those that want it deleted so badly do not want other editors to have a chance to add the sources. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, there is real world reference. PeaceNT 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Magic (Harry Potter) the only spells that even have close to the necessary real-world context are Expelliarmus and possibly the unforgiveable curses. Matching up Latin in WP:OR and describing the spells in the detail we have is against WP:PLOT. Will (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To redirect you would need to merge a lot of this information, and then the Magic article would be too long. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Frag - my opinions on the article are already logged and noted in the other afd, but to specify the crux: no third party, independent sources. Fan sites and JKR, along with one article on about.com, do not count as multiple third party sources. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you count CBBC as a fan site? PeaceNT 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, major Harry Potter plot element, useful list. NawlinWiki 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:USEFUL. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and especially the part: In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful."  Melsaran  (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is referenced, though not thoroughly, but it verifiable, and using the book as a source is perfectly fine. Additionally, "Spells in Harry Potter" is a complex matter, it is, therefore, reasonably necessary to keep the article with the purpose of explaining the many complicated terms. Without this page it would be hard for the readers to comprehend the bewildering spells used in quite a number of other Harry Potter-related articles, which, in turn, cause them trouble understanding articles, [that is to say the page is needed here on Wikipedia, transwiki-ing to some other Wikis is not a solution] Also, for the record, this material is by no means "fancruft", material on etymology, for example, is entirely encyclopedic. PeaceNT 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A complex matter, but a complex in-universe matter. --B. Wolterding 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Shall we delete anything related to ceratin fictional works? I think not.nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes any difference, that's what the "in-universe" tag is for. PeaceNT 16:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WAF and WP:NOR should be read here. The etymology is the only non-fan reference in the article, and is entirely original research. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. PeaceNT 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with a possible transwiki. Most of the list is just trivia and, with regards to the etymology, original research. Very few of the spells have any external references, and even those don't actually talk about the spell or the spells role in the series. Most instances is when an editor using the terms or phrases as metaphors to jazz up their writing, much like they would use phrases like jumping the shark or beyond the pale. But such usage of metaphors doesn't denote the notability of the spells, but the metaphors themselves, which would make a much better encyclopedic article. --Farix (Talk) 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The same problems remain: no proper sources, questionable notability and relevance (all anyone really needs to know is in Magic (Harry Potter), anything further is just of no possible interest or use to anyone other than Harry Potter fans, and this isn't the Potter wiki, which is where this stuff should be), and seemingly suffering from a major case of OR. In the event of a no-consensus, I hope those saying "keep and improve" will strive to do what they are voting for.  Mi re ma re  18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of articles that are of no interest to anyone other than fans of their topic. As one who has contributed to many Sonic the Hedgehog articles, I would think you would understand that. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really contribute much to them, I just keep an eye on them as they tend to attract more than their fair share of crufty additions which, as I'm sure you can tell from these AfDs, is something I don't at all like. But you cannot compare the two, as Sonic the Hedgehog is a notable video game, one of the most important ever, in fact, whereas Spells in Harry Potter are not notable at all outside of the novels in which they appear. Believe me, if someone were to create an article such as Items in Sonic the Hedgehog I would be just as eager to see it removed as I am with this Spells article, as it would fall foul of everything that Spells in Harry Potter does. I really don't have any anti-Harry Potter agenda here, just an anti unencyclopedic non-notable indescriminate list agenda - the subject is completely irrelevant.  Mi re ma re  02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Several people have pledged to do so, beyond just voting like it. It was awfully nice of them. --Kizor 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - saying an article, any article is only of interest or of use to only certain section of population is not an arguement. One can say, given any page that it is only of interest to those interested enough to visit it, by definition. The point is the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. KTC 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's an argument; it's clearly an article created by Harry Potter fans for other Harry Potter fans. There's no one who isn't already a fan who is going to be interested in it, because it covers details of fiction. I'm not a fan of astronomy, but the information in the article could still prove useful to me.  Mi re ma re  19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Smerge(Selectively merge) to Magic (Harry Potter). The major curses are main plot elements (such as the one which left Potter with his scar0 and deserve mention in Magic (Harry Potter). But fans have apparently conducted "fanspew" on this book to show their fondness for it, by creating a listing for many minor spells and jinxes which were used only once, which don't even have proper names, and which were promptly forgotten. Then the listings are padded out with original research about the etymology of each. Only etymology cited to Rowling or to publications about the Potter franchise should be left in the article. It is as unencyclopedic to describe each spell cast in these thousands of pages as to have an article listing each punch thrown in a "Rocky" movie or of each shot fired in an action movie. Notability of the Potter franchise does not percolate down and make every spell in the book notable. Edison 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said. &mdash; Deckiller 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if multiple secondary sources can be found that discuss, in large part, "Spells in Harry Potter" - their significance in the book, their currency in popular culture, whatever - a "fanspew" would be justified, at least to the extent of listing every spell created by Rowling. I agree about the etymologies.  Ichormosquito 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I gave Expelliarmus as one of those spells notable enough :) Will (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim to leave only those spells mentioned in the books, on Rowling's website, and maybe the films, as these are arguably the most "canonical". Gut the OR. Wl219 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: I'm with Radiant.  The first AfD closing in ten hours wasn't because there was anything wrong with the process; it's because the overwhelming number of Keeps compelled a WP:SNOW decision.  This never should have reached a 2nd AfD within the same month, let alone a third.    RGTraynor  19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There isn't much I can say that others haven't already, but I can say that many users, including me, will make sure that the article gets the attention it needs to get it up to code with references and fix any and all spelling and grammar problems and disputes with the new spells. Any further problems should be taken to the talk page. We were in the process of discussing the merge when the second nomination impeded on the conversation. Therequiembellishere 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and smack all involved with these continuous afd's with the mighty wand of Not a battleground, which translated into latin would be fun to say. Kyaa the Catlord 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True Translates to "non a pugna humus" nut-meg 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. If we served punishments for every violation of WP:NOT, then we'd have no editors. &mdash; Deckiller 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And that keeps seeming like a better and better option every day during an AfD catfight or a policy war... :/ --Kizor 13:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Help me here, why's it being nominated for deletion? I don't see the point of that. I mean, the article's full, and by all means legitimate. FurrSquee — FurrSquee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, though remove the OR and single-mention spells. Possibly limit to spells with a spoken component (I don't think the books describe apparation as a spell). If the gloriously non-notable lists of Pokemon deserve to be kept as 'occasional exceptions' to the fiction notability guideline, this does as well. In any case, there are masses of third party books and articles about Harry Potter, so finding sourcing for at least some of these should be quite easy.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just an essay. The Pokemon lists have survived repeated deletion debates, so I'm invoking precedent. It's easy to imagine this being cleaned up to the level of Characters in the Halo series.-- Nydas (Talk) 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This precedent means nothing as far as policy or guidelines are concerned. You may as well use that as an excuse to keep any article. Pokemon has many fans editing its articles, and therefore many keep votes to count on, just the same as here. The Pokemon-cruft articles stay regardless of whether they've got any business being in an encyclopedia, because there is "consensus" for them to do so, despite the fact that some of them clearly violate Wikipedia policies. This may sound cynical, but it's difficult, from the perspective of a non-fan, to see the repeated "keep"ing of such indiscriminate unsourced lists of minor fictional characters or items in any other way.  Mi re ma re  21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument sounds like 'if it has fans, then it must be fancruft'. There are plenty of third party sources for the spells in Harry Potter, see the books mentioned and the links provided above.-- Nydas (Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the link to the Characters page, but they are two different types of articles- Characters in the Halo series makes no OR claims, and was spun off because such details cannot go in the video game articles because it would be too large- an exception provided by List of characters... in WP:WAF, I believe (maybe not, I cannot remember). At the same time, it also features plenty of out of universe info- (the entire first section, and more soon, once I get around to it)- the Harry Potter article has only stuff about the spells itself, and the possible meanings in Latin. If all those spells were noted in some big way, not just a fan site, then I could see it having outside relevance from the work and thus notable. In its current way, don't see it happening. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is currently no special dispensation for lists of characters in the fiction guidelines, they're both lists of fictional things. As for out-of universe stuff, why is The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter or Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays not the equal of The Art of Halo?-- Nydas (Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, no coverage outside primary sources, thus, it has no notability (remember notability is not inherited). Also a giant pit of OR-cruft. Axem Titanium 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, for such a successful series/franchise, this is a notable topic. Many of these spells have entered into popular culture.  Also, reliable sources covering the topic do exist.  --musicpvm 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - large scale questionably notable things are usually kept (see all the Pokemon stuff, the video game stuff, the endless pornstar bios). --Rocksanddirt 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - first of all (this is not part of my argument so don't invoke some essay telling me this is an invalid argument, because I'm sure such an essay exists ;)) I am quite surprised that a B-class article of mid-importance to a WikiProject is on AfD. At any rate, as a few others noted, there are quite a few secondary sources about this topic to justify keeping it. That seems to have been the only valid argument (the lack of "real-world sources" as you call them) in this mess. Incidentally, someone said "There's no one who isn't already a fan who is going to be interested in it, because it covers details of fiction." - well, ignoring the fact that this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, I have never read The Lord of the Rings but reading through the information of Tolkien's world was quite fascinating to me. ugen64 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of WP:N, which is a fundamental part of any encyclopedia. The Tolkien article can of course be interesting to those who haven't read the books, that's what's intended after all. The same is true of the Harry Potter article, or those of the individual books. But, not being a Tolkien fan, would you be as interested in a list of fictional spells from Lord of the Rings (if there was one)?  Mi re ma re  21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment: The essays are useful because commonly consensus doesn't treat them as good reasons for either deleting or keeping and article. It's somewhat a waste of the closer's time and energy to read them. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Funny, it seems that you have just made the point without meaning to. Clearly your issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arguing that you find Tolkien more interesting than Harry Potter only proves that point. I might find an article about the magic in Tolkein to be interesting. But if I personally didn't it wouldn't mean it wasn't notable. Arguments about whether or not you personally find it interesting go directly to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. nut-meg 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Where did I say I find Tolkien more interesting than Harry Potter? Secondly you may very well find an article about magic in Lord of the Rings interesting, and the Harry Potter equivalent of that is Magic (Harry Potter), not Spells in Harry Potter which is an indiscriminate list of individual spells, of interest only to existing fans (which is not what an encyclopedia is for), rather than an overview of the magic itself.  Mi re ma re  16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Repeating comments in previous AfD: while I'm admittedly a newcomer to the AfD process, I fail to see the fuss here. WP:N(fiction) states that articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.  That seems to be precisely what's presented in this list -- spells are sourced both in the fiction and in secondary sources, providing detail on the development and etymology of the spells.  Notability thus seems clear, especially under the fiction guidelines, so I'd stress a keep.  Also, I must say that I find Radiant!'s analysis for a speedy keep particularly compelling, if only because all the time that's been wasted over the last couple weeks putting this article to relentless and repeated deletion attempts could have instead been spent on the article itself (and other articles!) -- and undeniably would have contributed far more to Wikipedia had it been spent thusly. Ashdog137 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete or transwiki. I'm appalled; this is absolutely not an encyclopedia article. This is a directory of fancruft - Wikipedia is not a directory. It is entirely based on primary or irrelevant sources and consists of nothing but original research. It should be noted that most of the keep arguments that have flooded this AFD discussion are based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or that all three of the previous discussions were speedily closed for whatever reason - the first AFD was withdrawn, and the second had valid concerns that still apply to this AFD. This is no longer a speedy keep candidate, either. --Core desat 23:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- per my comments in the two previous AfDs. -- Boricua  e  ddie  23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, preferably after a transwikiThis is a very interesting and useful list. However, it is not an encyclopedia article. There are specialized wikis for this. Wikipedia is not one of them. i said 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment For what it's worth, the mention of the Latin words' meanings, in my opinion, can hardly be considered original research. PeaceNT 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep
 * This AfD, as with all fiction debates I've yet come across, seems to boil down to two deletion arguments: WP:OR and WP:FICT. Can I first challenge someone to read WP:DEL and point out which of those points covers original research??  Articles qualify for deletion under WP:OR if and only if they contain pure original research with no possibility of the research ever being removed.  Leaving aside the question of whether a knowledge of elementary Latin qualifies as Original Research, even if anything which even looked like OR was removed, all that would go is the etymologies.  Everything else can be saved by the application of ludicrous numbers of OOTP Ch., &#91;PS Ch.&#93;, etc tags, or a reference section six feet long.  This article does not qualify for deletion under WP:OR.
 * Now for WP:FICT. Quite aside from the explicit statement "The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable"['above options' refering to, among other things, transwiki; my emphasis] which quite precludes anyone arguing for "delete" without prepending "transwiki or..."; let us take a quick count of the sources and references present on this page and the article in question.  We have three references to direct comments from JK Rowling.  We have a reference from the BBC (and, incidentally, there's another one that I'm going to add as soon as I've finished typing this).  We have thirteen references to a hardcopy published work.  Then we have, above, another published work that could be used for the same purpose, with an assurance that it soon will be.  A quick search of Amazon.com reveals numerous other non-fiction works about Harry Potter which may be of varying degrees of utility.  We have six Google News references that a helpful user found in two minutes searching - has anyone considered actually looking for some more??  We have, therefore, at my best guess, 11 separate secondary sources and at least three tertiary sources.  Let's try and make this article better rather than just trying to make the problem go away.  (Derogatory comment removed - please stay civil. --B. Wolterding 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)) Rebuke accepted, phrase reworded.  Happy-melon 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and incidentally, please let's not close this early! The last thing this article needs is ANOTHER DRV/AfD.  Let's have a full five-day debate and lay this matter to rest.  Happy-melon 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I agree that original research is not generally a reason for deleting an article - merely for improving it to meet WP:OR- however that can only be done when the topic of the article meets other important guidelines WP:NN, WP:RS, etc. In this case I would say that the article fails WP:NN and even if it did pass based on the sources found so far, the information the article would have to be cut down to such an extent that it would not necesitate an individual article and could be merged into the Harry Potter Magic article. however I would say the following points in WP:DEL could be seen to cover original research when regarded in a certain way: 1) "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" - very general but per WP:OR original research is not considered suitable for an encylopaedia. 2) "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" - if something does not meet WP:NN then secondary sources cannot be found, if sources other than the editor cannot be found then the article could be assumed to be original research by default. 3) "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" AND "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" - pretty much the same as above, without relaible soures an article is likely to be largely original research.

I'm not saying that these apply here but in my opinion, that's how the deletion guidelines consider original research. Guest9999 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Response - I don't disagree - an article without any reliable sources must be OR. However, the biggest single problem I have with WP:FICT is that it completely and utterly discounts the canon itself as a reliable source (or at least it's interpreted that way).  Surely it is incontravertable that the best source of evidence for what, say, the Expelliarmus charm does has got to be the text itself!?!  That is Rowling's definitive treastise on the subject!  As WP:FICT stands, what I assume it is trying to say (there are BIG problems if it isn't!) is that secondary sources are required for evidence of notability, while primary sources (the books) are satisfactory sources for actual details.  If this is not what it's saying, and it's trying to say that all articles about Harry Potter must reference without using the books at all for any reason, then the problems with WP:FICT are even greater than I believe!  This is what I believe a lot of people are misinterpreting WP:FICT as.  Almost everything in this article can be referenced to the books, and (if necessary) will be, although it will involve the addition of a ludicrous number of &#91;PS Ch.&#93; and OOTP Ch. tags.  That can be done, and proves that there is little true OR in this article (I have found some, but not much, and as soon as this debate is over it will die a painful death).  The only way it can be argued that the whole article is OR is if the books are completely discounted as sources, which is ridiculous.  Happy-melon 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:FICT only restates WP:NN as it applies to fiction, remember these things do not actually exist - the book is a primary source. My main issue here is that I just do not think that these articles simply do not belong in Wikipedia (per the guidelines). They may well be interesting, useful and fun but that does not mean they belong in an enclopaedia (which wikipedia is WP:5P). They would be very useful and informative as part of a Harry Potter Wiki or fansite - the information on such a fansite would probably be more complete and informative specificly because it did not have to conform to the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not an universal depository of all information WP:NOT and trying to shoehorn in information that does not meet the guidelines in the end helps no one - least of all those who would hope to gain from that information. Guest9999 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Delete Spells in Harry Potter does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There is no real world significance. "Keep - find sources" is not an acceptable thing to say at an AFD. If you want the article kept, you find the sources. The closing admin is not a verification service. Jay32183 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that as of now, there are now fifteen completely reliable, news-based sources referenced in this article, plus a number of other references of questionable, but arguable reliability. Let's everyone please resist the temptation to assume that a fictional article cannot possibly have comprehensive secondary source coverage, and actually look at the facts.  Happy-melon 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those "sources" were added before I made my assessment. Jay32183 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And so you choose to ignore them completely? Or did you mean to say "after I made my assessment"??  Happy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore them. I include them when I say there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. After adding those fifteen, there are still zero that allow this article to stand on its own. Jay32183 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the sources added to the article so far I think that a lot of the don't actually meet WP:RS a lot of them are things like the Harry Potter Lexicon - a fan site which doesn't meet WP:RS, , , ; Mugglenet - another fansite, an Emma Watson fansite, as well as one which is just a dictionary definition,a site where anyone can post content - , self described blogcritics , a blogger for a minor newspaper , things from the authors and continuity editors of the books (if everything an author described warranted and article... etc.) , , there are also several sources which take the form of a quiz on sopell names which don't actually give any information except for what the spell names supposedly mean they are on the BBC but I'm not sure if this kind of childrens quiz qualifies as an article endorsing source , , , then there is what I think is another fansite  - but it's a 'chat' with the author anyway. I think that just leaves the book "Wizard Words: The Literary, Latin, and Lexical Origins of Harry Potter’s Vocabulary" which does not make for multiple secondary sources as layed out in WP:NN. Guest9999 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * OK, I'll go through the list again and try and balance that argument (which you can't deny is a little NPOV).  HP lexicon - no one is claiming this is a reliable source - it's an extra left over from before.  It is, however, possibly the best-referenced and most reliable HP reference site there is.  However, to give you every advantage, let's ignore hp-lexicon.com.  You'll note that those references weren't even included on my list of 15 reliable sources. , please note the comment.  This is not a work published by mugglenet, it is in fact a transcript of a BBC television program.  Given that other copies of the transcript are doubtless available, the real provenance of this source is not mugglenet but the BBC.  That makes it rather harder for you to dismiss.  , I'm sorry but what gives you the right to dismiss entirely a widely published interview with the Japanese media purely because it's reprinted on a fansite??  I have, incidentally, the same interview repeated word-for-word on Radcliffe's official site , Grint's official site , and what I think is an article about the interview in Japanese from the actual news company  although of course I can't read it so I can't be sure.  Then I don't care how minor it is, your "blogger for a minor newspaper"  is still writing for a published, referenced and accountable journal, and hence qualifies as a reliable source.  Vide Rowling's direct quotes ( and ), I would argue that the latter is a useful source because it describes the sheer scale of the fan following for Harry Potter.  However, again to give you every advantage possible, note that these two sources are used only for factual verification of the descriptions of some spells, not for notability purposes.  Finally, the BBC articles.  How you can throw these out is quite beyond me.  The BBC thinks that Spells in Harry Potter are sufficiently notable to devote three pages to them, one way or another.  That should be all the justification required.  However, think about the true implications of a quiz format.  Not only does the BBC think that HP spells are notable, they think that these spells are so notable that the majority of visitors to that page will have enough knowledge to be able to take a quiz on them.  Let me finally quote something from WP:RS that supports my argument: "As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.".  That is the criterion for assessing reliability.  The target audience has nothing to do with it.  Are you claiming that the BBC did not check these pages for factual errors and legal issues as thoroughly as any of their other pages?  Are you claiming that the Huffington Post does not check for factual errors?  The Japanese press?  Rowling herself?  Then finally, we have the published book, which you quite rightly didn't even try to attack (as you would have failed miserably).  So after all that, and after giving you every possible advantage and swinging every debatable point your way, you've managed to write off TWO sources.  So we have 13 left.  Your serve.  Happy-melon 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What about The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter? The index (viewable on Amazon) mentions Arithmancy, Animagus (4 times), Aveda Kedevra (twice), Charms (4 times), Dark Arts (twice), Divination (5 times), Fidelius Charm, Latin (16 times), Patronus (3 times) and Unforgivable Curses (twice).-- Nydas (Talk) 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Can someone please get it so we can add another incontavertable reference to this article?  Guest9999 above didn't even feel able to take a crack at the other hardcopy source we've got.  Happy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I do think it's possible that the Huffington Press didn't check for factual errors in a personal blog. The BBC quiz claims to give definitions of spell names - too be honest this just seems odd considering the answers - if they had asked what the spells did the answers would have made more sense. I also would say that the mugglenet source shouldn't be used to establish notability - it is still a fansite and I don't think it can be verified. Even considering the current sources that have been established I still do not see that this topic warrents an individual article. Also a lot of publications which can be considered "accountable journal[s]" by your definition do not count as reliable sources - school newspapers are bound by laws of libel and copyright - but everything written about in a school newspaper isn't then considered notable.Guest9999 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Delete - I feel that this is a fancruft list that serves primarily a very small subset of editors (Potterfans). As such, I cast my lot for the Dalek side of the argument. However, it is more than likely we'll end with a call of No Consensus. --Agamemnon2 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry. If it ends with no consensus, someone will nominae it again next week and you can try again.nut-meg 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A small subset? Harry Potter pages are some of the most heavily edited and heavily seen pages. Therequiembellishere 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you actually read WP:CRUFT (which, incidentally, is an essay with no binding authority) you'll notice it has a whole section on how Cruft status does not qualify as grounds for deletion, and another on what to do with crufty articles (get to work on them!). Having read that properly your argument, Agamemnon, becomes WP:IDONTLIKEITHappy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Expecto Patronum against those who woud suck the soul out of Wikipedia and make it a depressing place where all cheer and hope is gone. Seriously, keep, due to a huge amount of real-world notability from reliable sources, as demonstrated by nearly every "keep" argument above, and the consensus of hundreds of Wikipedia editors, only a small fraction of whom have the time and energy to expend defending this article against continual nominations for deletion. DHowell 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major, I would say essential, part of a HUGE series. The magic and spells in Harry Potter play as big a role as any teacher in the series. If we are going to cover the series in a comprehensive manner, demanding that it be without coverage of the magic used is going to be a rather meaningless restriction. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that, please see Magic (Harry Potter).  Mi re ma re  13:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't be merged or the magic article is too longnut-meg 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging does not mean tacking one article onto another, it means selecting the important parts from the first and including them in the second. Once the single-mention spells and other trivial entries are pruned, there are no space problems.  Mi re ma re  23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. 1) There are no inherent verifiablity problems, as the information can be verified by reading the books themselves. Using the primary source is not only acceptable, but necessary in cases like this, as the existence of a spell in a book is a simple fact rather than original interpretation. As an analogy, would we require secondary sources to verify a List of characters in Hamlet? I think not. As others have said elsewhere, the spells can be considered "characters" in these books, and a list of them is valid content in an encyclopedia article. In this case the list was split off for practical reasons of article size, not necessarily because of the "encyclopedic" (whatever that means) importance of the topic; in a paper encyclopedia, this content might be included as a sidebar, table, or appendix. 2) The list membership criteria should be obvious from the title, as this is a relatively short list and every spell in the books can be included. It's not like a List of people from the United Kingdom, which would be too large in principle and would require inclusion criteria. 3) The final concern in the nomination seems to be notability. While it is true that "notability is not inherited", some of it may be. Remember that there are many millions of fans, and many thousands at least will be interested in a list of spells. This interest can be verified from secondary sources such as websites that have been mentioned. Sure, there is no Britannica article with a list of spells, but WP is different because it is not paper and it has more people writing the articles than Britannica does. Using some websites for recent, popular-culture topics seems legitimate to me; not every conceivable Wikipedia topic has an academic journal devoted to it! Finally, some comments who use the *cruft argument have said things like "who else could have an interest in this article but Harry Potter fans?". But we have many articles on much more obscure topics on quantum physics or mathematics and (fortunately) no one wants to delete them with the argument that "who cares about it besides theoretical physicists?". I would bet that there are more Harry Potter fans that theoretical physicists. --Itub 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly well argued, Itub - your analogies are much better than any I have been able to assemble. I took the liberty of linking some of your points to relevant policy - I hope you don't mind.  It presents a forceful and cohesive argument.  Thankyou!! Happy-melon 14:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1- all the latin descriptions are WP:OR and not verifiable, unless Rowling states so or whatnot. The primary sources are not a problem; the lack of out of universe info and secondary sources (see WP:RS) are. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter devotes a few pages to the Latin translations (I flipped through an old copy today).-- Nydas (Talk) 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Latin materials are NOT original research. Those translations can be found in any dictionaries, there is absolutely no need for Rowling to specify the meaning of each Latin word she uses. PeaceNT 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response (edit conflict!) Verifiability isn't the problem. Notability is the problem, and the fact that this is an indiscriminate list, listing ALL spells regardless of how useful or notable they are. The "interest" argument, which seems to be being misinterpreted by some, is that these spells are of possible interest only to Harry Potter fans, whereas you don't have to be a "fan" of quantum physics to find that article useful and informative. Encyclopedia articles should be written for readers who have no knowledge of the subject concerned, as an introduction to the subject, not for fans of the subject. That's what the Harry Potter Wiki is for. The above argument seems to be based entirely on WP:NOTPAPER, which could be used as an argument for keeping anything.  Mi re ma re  15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's an extremely turgid and speculative argument; a case could absolutely be made that there are those who aren't hardcore HP fans who might find a spell list interesting, while those not versed in mathematics or physics could readily find a quantum physics article dull or impenetrable ... and it is extremely unlikely that someone who lacked an interest in either case would find the article "useful." Frankly, the notability of the major background element in the highest selling fiction series of all time shouldn't be a "problem," it should be overwhelming.    RGTraynor  16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the notability of "the major background element in the highest selling fiction series of all time" isn't up for debate. What you are refering to is magic, and that is covered in Magic (Harry Potter). These individual spells are not notable of themselves. Those that are should be covered in Magic (Harry Potter).  Mi re ma re  17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (edit conflict, as well!) This argument is nonsensical to me -- how can you make this "interest" argument?  People without an interest in quantum physics are no more or less likely to read an article on quantum physics than people without an interest in Harry Potter would a Harry Potter article, and the converse is true as well.  For example, let's say I'm a linguist with an interest in how dead languages are being used in modern culture -- voila, this article is of interest to me, even though I may despise (or may have never heard of!) Harry Potter.  That argument boils down to I don't want to read this, so nobody else would, which is not only no valid reason to delete an article, but is no more true for any one article than any other article anywhere on Wikipedia. Ashdog137 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply (damn these edit conflicts!) So in other words, never delete anything because someone might want to read it? And let's not even get into the questionable "Latin" part of the article, presenting as fact extracts of an unofficial speculative book with no claim to speak for what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean. I'd be very interested to hear a convincing argument on how a non-Harry Potter fan can find this article useful in any way. As for "interest" please read again my comment about who an encyclopedia is written for.  Mi re ma re  17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response You misconstrue my challenge to your argument -- there are plenty of valid reasons to delete articles, but "I don't like it and don't see why anyone would want to read it" isn't one.  As for a non-fan finding the entry useful, see the argument I just made above -- I'm not a Potter fan, and that's exactly why I came to visit this article, and I found it enlightening.  But, since you want to discard all etymology, let's go with the easier, simpler argument -- as can be clearly told from the references in the article, Harry Potter spells are getting significant coverage in major news outlets (e.g. BBC), which reflects the fact that they're in open and frequent use in popular society.  A non-fan may have encountered a reference to a spell in everyday interactions and desire to get some background on what that reference meant -- voila, another reason why a non-fan would want to read this article, and precisely what people turn to encyclopediae for. Ashdog137 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response that's very possible, and exactly what the Magic (Harry Potter) article should be for. Very few of theses spells even approach notability in the real world (even given the argument that a mention in a BBC online kids' quiz can equal notability) and should be covered in the Magic (Harry Potter). Everything else is fancruft, of interest to fans only, pure and simple.  Mi re ma re  17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I guess that's just where we'll have to agree to disagree -- as a non-fan, I found the content of interest, so I cannot concede that point to you, particularly not in such broad, sweeping, uncompromising terms. Ashdog137 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...presenting as fact extracts of an unofficial speculative book with no claim to speak for what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean. Verifiability, not truth. If there are two or three sources reporting what a spell means, that's what we go for.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nydas, and, I might add, the article won't tell you what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean., it only provides relevant information on the background of the Latin words used in Harry Potter spells. This is the exact type of material suitable for an encyclopedia. PeaceNT 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Etymology" refers to the history and development of a word, therefore you do need to know what the author intended them to mean, otherwise you are misleading readers into taking speculation as fact, which is not suitable practise for an encyclopedia.  Mi re ma re  23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Question? does anyone have any of these books that people keep talking about as sources, if so does anyone know anything about them other than that they exist - the publisher, how many copies have sold, are they independent of the material, are they speculation, do the contradict each other, can they be deemed a reliable source? The fact that's something is in print doesn't mean that it's an independent reliable seocndary source which goes towards a subject's notability. Guest9999 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * My god, is it really so hard to do a Google search?


 * The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter


 * The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter


 * Beacham's Sourcebook For Teaching Young Adult Fiction: Exploring Harry Potter


 * Harry Potter Through the Looking Glass


 * Seriously, the Amazon links were first or second on every search. GlassCobra 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors have already said that they have them. --Kizor 09:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was really asking more for how they may be viewed in terms of WP:RS in order to establish notability - I thought the case for this could be made better by editors who have read the books and are familiar with Wikipedia policy than by Amazon. Incidentally none of those books seems to be about spells, the spells simply being mentioned an aspect of something larger such as magic in Harry Potter or Harry Potter in general, if at all.Guest9999 03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * That's not the point. A book about quantum mechanics in general, which mentions the Uncertainty Principle, is a perfectly reliable source on Uncertainty principle, assuming it's properly verified, fact-checked, etc.  Not all reliable sources have to be peer-reviewed journals, Guest9999, much as you might like them to be.  Happy-melon 10:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is the point. Notability is having significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic, WP:N. For a source to be reliable it must go through some editorial process. A self-published book by a non-expert is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. We need to know the publishers of the books, and the contents of the books. Jay32183 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Has several sources in this case noe, is more notable and quite frankly it would be way too long if we have to merge with the main article or other various articles.--JForget 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Harry Potter series became a part of our culture, and there had been books that describe on the effects of the curses and spells being used in the series. The books are sufficient enough as sources of these information, and please, stop nominating this one for deletion. I also read on the notability, the usefulness, and I think, not only in Wikipedia but also on other encyclopedias, each of us has our own interest -- for instance some articles seem to be boring to one person and interesting on another. Remember, in the case of Quantum Physics, for example, not all people are interested on that. And may I suggest that instead of deleting this one, can we just edit and improve this page and include its real life attributes, if any? Chitetskoy 10:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ReductoDelete: unencyclopedic fancruft. David Mestel(Talk) 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GlassCobra 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: His argument was not like- or dislike-based, if I read it correctly. bwowen talk•contribs 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it breaks down into WP:UNENCYC and WP:CRUFT. The former translates to "It doesn't belong on Wikipedia" which is not an argument.  If it's not an argument it's an opinion, therefore it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  The second part is not a valid argument to delete - cruft is to be rewritten and carefully pruned, not hit with a blunt axe.  Happy-melon 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what I'm saying is that I think that an article named "List of spells in Harry Potter" is probably never going to be anything other than fancruft. However, I'm willing to be proved wrong. David Mestel(Talk) 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And when I say "unencylclopedic", that's meant to be kind of shorthand for "I think that this is, and will always be, far more in-depth than is appropriate for an encyclopedia". David Mestel(Talk) 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – see Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (2nd nomination) for my arguments.  Melsaran  (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep and CLEANUP, This article is "important" and deserves to be an article. It provides information about the spells in HP and background info on other things. There is no obvious reason for deletion, there are sources im Sure however they are just not listed. It can be improved greatly only if someone takes the time to do so. Once debate is over I will be happy to find and cite some sources, so as of now this is on my watch page and as i said when debate is over i will begin cleanup, as I am sure will many others. **Ko2007**  19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the right attitude to take, Ko2007, but why wait until the AfD is over? Help us improve this article now!!  Happy-melon 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tracking down the sources and citing them will be time consuming. Why take the time if it is only going to be deleted? The main reason it keeps being nominated for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as is shown by the fact that those who want it deleted have nominated it three times this month. If it were just a matter of poor sourcing, it would have been nominated for improvement, not deletion. nut-meg 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on the article being nominated three times in a month. This is true however this is the only AfD where debate has been allowed to continue over the normal AfD time frame. Guest9999 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Indeed. It's not that the article has been nominated in three separate situations, more like this is a single situation where three AfDs were formatted. It's really just a technical issue, and is different from a typical article that is repeatedly AfD'ed. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I am not convinced that sources have been found that show that the topic meets the primary notability criteria; there is also none of the real world content mentioned in the specific fiction criteria. Almost all of the more reputable sources mentioned seem to refer to spells as an aspect of something greater and notability is not inherited. The magic in Harry Potter covers spells and I think that is sufficient. As it is the current article is full of original research especially the etymology entries which seem to be new synthesis of published material by editors, if editors think that in the future more sources and information will become available then that might be a good reason to userfy the article but not to keep it as a part of Wikipedia. Guest9999 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Exactly, nut-meg, I am only going to clean it up if it is voted to be kept, which seems most likley, why waste the time if its only going to be deleted! **Ko2007**  20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not convinced that looking up a word in a dictionary or translating something is original research. We do it all the time for articles about foreign-language topics, and for good reason. --Itub 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Excellent positional play there, Guest9999, leaving your !vote until right at the end. However, whether or not you're convinced, a substantial part of the 90kB of this page (which incidentally will outsize the actual article if it goes on much longer) is devoted to showing quite clearly the wealth of reliable sources that exist for spells in Harry Potter.  Of course most of these sources "refer to spells as an aspect of something else" - to use the quantum mechanics analogy that seems to be floating around in this AfD a lot, how many books do you think talk only about one obscure aspect of QM like Weyl quantization? None - instead all the references consider a broader aspect of QM in which parts are useful, reliable sources for each subarticle of quantum mechanics.  However, unlike Weyl quantization, whatever the hell that is, this article also has hardcopy references which do specifically cover spells and spellcasting.  Also unlike Weyl quantization, Spells in Harry Potter is 142nd on the list of most-visited pages on Wikipedia, wheras I suspect Weyl quantisation will be somewhere down the 1.5 million mark.
 * This will be the third time that I've pointed out that presence or even preponderance of Original Research is never a grounds for deletion.  The addition of references to this text is progressing, hampered only by the sheer quantity of good material to reference.  The argument about etymologies is sound, but even if it were determined that they represented pure original research, that would not be any grounds for deletion of the whole article.
 * All in all, then, Guest9999, although each of your points flags up a problem with the article, none of them indicates a legitimate ground for deletion. Rewrite, yes; prune, yes; reference, yes; delete, no.  I'm afraid I can't get over the suspicion that you just DONTLIKEIT.  Happy-melon 11:29, 27 August 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.