Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter family tree

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, on the grounds of original research and redundancy, primarily. Keep !votes all sound like WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Harry Potter family tree

Harry Potter family tree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I think the article says it all. I'm sure any of the things the author wants to do is either already incorporated onto existing pages or that can easily be done. PageantUpdater 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom, per article text, per templates at bottom. Giggy UCP 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per both of the above. Lilac Soul 08:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think the article introduces anything new to what the main existing pages already give. Perhaps someone should consider nominating the rest of the articles in Category:Fictional family trees. Spellcast 13:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename I think that this page can show just how all the family trees shown in ther series are related, though the article should be renamed to reflect this.--Tempest115 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Relatives of Harry Potter. Redundant. --Quoth nevermore 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete redundant to Template:HarryPotterFamilyTree Will (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I created this page with the intent of summarizing all the available pages. Perhaps this would be better under a heading on the main Harry Potter page? It was intended as a comprehensive family tree. — mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Will. Redundant. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is fansite stuff. Propaniac 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rework This is a great idea to show graphically the Potter Family tree, but it was never proven that Cadmus is the ancestor of Slythern, thus being the ancestor of Voldemort. Slythern could be the decendant of Antioch just as much as he could be the decendant of Cadmus. But the fact that Marvolo Gaunt had the Resurrection Stone is a pretty good case for the Gaunts to be decendants of Cadmus, thus making Slythern the decendant of Cadmus. But regardless, I wouldn't delete this page, its a good idea, it just needs to be decided on where Voldemort's portion of the tree lies, Cadmus or Antioch? --Ivalum21 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - This is a useful reference and should be allowed to grow and improve before it is prematurely and hastily deleted. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is too early to start deleting all these article. I think its intended use as a summary is appropriate. DGG (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I may be wrong on that one but it can be appropriate to add it in the Harry Potter article - or a part of an external link from the HP article--JForget 23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong Keep per Fullmetal2887. It's had 24 hours, and much of the family tree is already cross-posted to other harry potter articles (notably Relatives of Harry Potter). This speaks to its value in describing the content of those articles, in the context of those articles. If it must be deleted as redundant, then I would recommend that Mrmaroon25 userfy its contents until he is done with them. The completed tree, which would be worth keeping in the context of individual articles such as Relatives of Harry Potter, could then be updated in the appropriate articles. Those articles would also be consistent with each other, something which they do not currently appear to be. ZZ 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for being completely in-universe material. - Chardish 02:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ""Strong Keep"" It is a very good idea and reflects how the people in the potter universe relate to each other.
  • Delete, merging content to somewhere appropriate. This profusion of non-notable sub-articles is getting way out of hand, and damages the credibility of the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect, I'm pretty sure this is elsewhere, but as Rowling gives out more information on the subject, it might become necessary in the future.Ravenmasterq 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Black family tree contains very nearly everything this page could. Tesseran 08:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very useful in understanding the Potter family tree, although some of the infomation can be found in other aticles, this pulls that information and more into a comprehensive and comprehendable format. Chardish, there are many "in-universe material" articles out there. Deleteing this article on those grounds would be a bold statement about deleting all other articles that are similar. MegaLegoChai 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — MegoLegoChai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. This is already on Harry Potter (character) -Inventm 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is already incorporated into several other pages.Csloomis 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep But there's no proof that Salazar Slytherin is descended from the middle Peverell brother. He could have married into the family. CathyWeeks 24 July 2007 — CathyWeeks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep and Rework This page consolidates important information, and is in my opinion of encyclopedic value. It currently reads as a collaborative project, not an article. If rewritten in a way that makes it more like an article, I think it could be of greater value. A deletion is too hasty when this page has so much potential. Alexbrewer 05:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but Keep the template Having done some (non-Potter) family trees myself, I'd like to suggest to make new template for the complete Harry Potter Characters Family Tree (HPCFT), possibly in user space during creation. Then we can decide how to use it.SQB 07:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep If the nominator was correct and this information is available elsewhere then that would justify a merge not a delete however this information as a diagram is not the same as a text description and so is not redundant. Adding this family tree to the page of every one of the people listed would make those pages excessive. If you feel this information is too 'in universe' then ad an introductory sentence saying this is the family tree of a fictional family - Don't delete.Filceolaire 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously it's a work in progress, but it has sufficient potential. Marc Shepherd 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Family trees belong in relevant articles, not randomly lying around for no reason. Titanium Dragon 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All information in this tree except the Gaunts and Peverells is included in the Black family tree, and the Black tree is massive compared to this one.Xasz 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Relatives of Harry Potter; a separate article including just a family tree seems unnecessary though. --musicpvm 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I considered a template-ify vote first for re-use across HP articles (edit: I see this page already incorporates Template:HarryPotterFamilyTree in major way) but it works better as a sub-article linked from See also sections for anyone who is really interested. Encyclopedicness is IMO established as I can see many people going to WP to look up such info (who can keep track after seven books spanned over 10 years?). It is somewhat redundant though with Template:Blackfamilytree now because of all the new intermarriages. If that issue is worked out, I'd switch to delete for this redundant template, but not the family tree idea in general. The article could also use some references for where (book, chapter) to look up all presented info. – sgeureka t•c 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Rework I found this page to be immensely useful, and the information is quite relevant. If all of this information is already incorporated in other pages, I can understand the rationale for deletion, but is this information in the other pages organized as concisely as it is here? Or are we simply saying the information is redundant because it's possible for the reader to reconstruct this family tree after visiting 5 to 10 articles and referencing the books multiple times? Tzepish 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an important part of the storyline, especially in Book 7. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 07:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, correct any errors of fact. It shows all the genealogy without having to ferret through much miscellaneous other text for it. Anthony Appleyard 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Its duplication of List of characters in the Harry Potter books but the family tree is a very good representation of the relationships. So, I would suggest to move the family tree from this article to List of characters in the Harry Potter books, clean up the latter to remove duplication and redirect to that article. --soum talk 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:Trivia. It also fails WP:N and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete let me see... original research, unsourced, and probably some of the CSDs as well... A1 comes to mind. SamBC 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.