Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Existential Adulteration of Harry Potter


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Existential Adulteration of Harry Potter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is simply about a piece of fan fiction. It has been self-published in the same way as many other such pieces, and does not even appear to be widely known in the fan community. This is basically just a piece of advertising, supported by no independent references. If this work does become notable in the future, there will be no problem in creating an appropriate article at that time. For now, it is an inadequately referenced puff piece, and should go. RomanSpa (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've read the book, which you obviously haven't, you will know that this is not your average piece of fan fiction. It is used in the psychology community as an intervention, mainly with positive psychologists. It also links to existentialism, and adds to that literary genre. Regardless of how it was published, it lends itself to several fields, and therefore may have merit. I heard about this book in several Harry Potter fan sites, so just because you haven't heard about it on CNN, doesn't mean it is unknown. Dmoriarty123 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see where this was covered in anything that would show notability for this work. The problem with asserting that something lends to various genres of literature and fields of research is that you must prove its notability by providing coverage in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, scholarly articles, and the like. I can't see where this has actually received any true coverage anywhere. You can claim that the work adds to this or that field or genre, but without proof it will still fail our notability guidelines. It isn't personal against the work, it's just that every article must assert notability per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination; insufficient notability as (not) evidenced by reliable 3rd party sources. DP 76764  (Talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Interesting, I suppose.  But far short of the notability requirements.  Were there to be reliable, independent coverage of its use as a tool in positive psychology, that might be cause to re-evaluate.  But I'm certain that a book self-published in February of this year could not have attracted that sort of attention yet; indeed, no such sources are forthcoming. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can be recreated if it is proved to satisfy our guidelines.  Right now, it's too soon.  Like S.O. above says, we need proof that it's used as a tool or aid. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2014 (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.