Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons (Harry Potter)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The keep arguments center around the importance/significance of the topic, which is enough to get it past speedy delete under CSD A7. However, consensus is that there is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Dragons (Harry Potter), the Harry Potter series, and those connected with the Harry Potter series for the topic to meet the general notability guidelines. The article itself provided evidence to support this consensus in that the article was composed of original research rather than material from independent reliable sources. -- Jreferee t/c 22:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dragons (Harry Potter)
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Harry Potter beasts: a recitation of plot summary from the Harry Potter books and has no other information. The article basically says nothing that isn't plot summary, has no notability, and should be deleted. Tony Sidaway 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with the nominator. Delete. --Tone 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note also List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Dragons which seems to cover the subject adequately. Despite the name implying only characters, that article also covers most animals in Harry Potter, right down to someone's unfortunate (and unnamed) pet gerbil. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, no, it doesn't cover the subject adequately, because it lists the dragons and links to the article on the dragons for more information. Melsaran (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect with anchor to the article section indicated above, to prevent creation of redlinks and take people to where the information is. -- saberwyn 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note also List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Dragons which seems to cover the subject adequately. Despite the name implying only characters, that article also covers most animals in Harry Potter, right down to someone's unfortunate (and unnamed) pet gerbil. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- This should be only at their own wikia. Delete and Wikia--JForget 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge relevant parts to List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Dragons, delete the rest. -- Jelly Soup 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as cruft. Bondegezou 10:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it "cruft"? Because you don't like it? Melsaran (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- How is it not cruft? Because you do like it? -- Jelly Soup 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, because it is relevant information on a notable subject. "Cruft" means "excess; superfluous junk", which indicates that he wants to have it deleted because he doesn't like it, and not because he has a substantial argument on why the content is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Melsaran (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- But that IS the reason. This is nothing but excess; superfluous junk, which indicates that we want it deleted BECAUSE it's excess; superfluous junk. Explain to me how detailed information on a fictional species in a children's book is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, because it is relevant information on a notable subject. "Cruft" means "excess; superfluous junk", which indicates that he wants to have it deleted because he doesn't like it, and not because he has a substantial argument on why the content is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Melsaran (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- How is it not cruft? Because you do like it? -- Jelly Soup 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it "cruft"? Because you don't like it? Melsaran (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Dragons per Tony. They can still transwiki as an editorial process later. – sgeureka t•c 15:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I haven't heard any actual arguments for deletion besides the usual "it's fancruft" nonsense. No, this can not be redirected to List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Dragons, because that page lists characters in Harry Potter and links to the articles on those characters, it does not provide information on them. If you would want to merge this, the list would become unorganised (with much more coverage of the dragons than of the other characters). This is not a "plot summary", it's a description of characters in a series, and it does have notability; it is just detailed information about a notable subject. It's the same as saying "we don't need articles on individual Formula 1 seasons, they are recitations of the happenings in that particular season, have no notability, and should be deleted". Melsaran (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep it is not a plot summary, but an organized discussion of number of characters from the books, and immensely better than creating individual articles for them. DGG (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable unsourced fan cruft. Judgesurreal777 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Fancruft" is POV ("cruft" means "I don't like it"), I have yet to hear why it is "non-notable" (it is simply in-depth information on a notable fictional subject) and it is not "unsourced" (the books are the sources, see the references section). Melsaran (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- It needs references from outside the book, or it isn't notable. Judgesurreal777 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, no, it is simply detailed information on the books. Melsaran (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia policy, you need to have references outside the source material or notability can't be established. However, if it's just being included for the sake of 'detailed information', might I suggest a better place? - Jelly Soup 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ehm, no, it is simply detailed information on the books. Melsaran (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- It needs references from outside the book, or it isn't notable. Judgesurreal777 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge couldn't we just make another page for the creatures in Harry Potter? Keyblade Mage 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage
- Delete - seems like original research and synthesis - a description of the various breeds of dragons in the Harry Potter books based on those books and no secondary sources could hardly be anything else. No WP:reliable sources are cited to establish notability. The article itself does not assert that the subject is in any way notable. Dlabtot 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/transwiki or merge Completely lacking in real world information, and isn't needed for general understanding of Harry Potter as a fictional series. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it's lacking in real world information; it's simply detailed coverage of a fictional subject, so obviously it will have to treat it as a fictional subject (though it may need some out-of-universe reworking). The main article may cover the influence the series had on the real world, but articles on specific subjects within Harry Potter may not. And it is, indeed, not needed for general understanding of the Harry Potter series, but neither do you need an article on HTTP persistent connection for a general understanding of the internet, or an article on Iron(III) oxide-hydroxide for a general understanding of chemistry. Melsaran (talk) 14:51, 27 September 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.
