Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard People, Dear Readers


 * 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. John254 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wizard People, Dear Readers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a massive amount of original research, with 3 real references that are already in the article it is mentioned in, Parodies of Harry Potter. It is not nearly notable enough to have its own article, the reliable sources put it as a section in the parody article, so this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, nah, notability is established in reliable sources. Also a notable author. Voretus (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've never read a Harry Potter book or seen a movie. I know nothing about Harry Potter, but I found this article interesting, notable, and well-written. Most substantial claims are well-sourced (for instance, the New York Times). There's a fascinating legal argument in the "Presentations" section, concerning whether or not the "use of appropriated plot, characters and themes interlaced with humor constituted a separate work of art in its own right." It's not clear to me at all how this article fails notability. DOSGuy (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a fairly well written article with established notability, as well as being about one of the more notable and somewhat controversial parodies. Skyknyt (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of the more notable Harry Potter parodies out there, and at its time it sparked some actual discussion on what constitutes the right to use stuff for parody. It would be an absolute shame if someone looking to improve their Wikipedia track record limited this to one sentence in the HP parody wiki just because they don't consider this notable. ahnonamis (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.171.168 (talk)
 * Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd heard a great deal about this... whatever it is, well before reading the article. It's a legitimately famous parody and certainly deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.41.27 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (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.