Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legilimency
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 No Consensus. While the concerns about perspective and sourcing are legitimate there is no consensus below that they rise to the level of requiring deletion. Interested parties should continue discussions about where and which content to merge. Eluchil404 00:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legilimency
There is no evidnece on the page that it meets the primary notability guideline set out in WP:NN - or the more specific guideline in WP:FICT, there is no real world content or perspective and the only secondary sources are a fansite [1] and the author's website [2], these are not independent or reliable (WP:RS). It seems likely that a lot of the article is original research this will not change without any sources. Also WP:NOT#INFO and WP:FAN seem to apply as this material would probably belong in a Harry Potter wiki but not an encylopaedia. Guest9999 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Magic (Harry Potter)#Legilimency and occlumency. Wl219 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cancel AfD. There has been quite a bit of discussion at Talk:Magic (Harry Potter)#Articles suggested to merge into this article about what belongs in its own article. The last book has been out long enough for the encyclopedists to be taking over from the fancrufters, and good decisions seem to be being made. We should let the project settle this out. I will also let them know of this discussion. Matchups 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - The article fails notability. Judgesurreal777 01:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Holy moley, this article is a bunch of OR! Merge it if you must, but there's very little usable stuff here. --UsaSatsui 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete completely in-universe essay contrived by original research Corpx 06:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge per above Will (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake, Guest9999, will you please actually listen to the points made in other AfDs?? Whether you agree with them or not on the principle of the thing, many editors (myself included) have presented perfectly valid, policy based arguments against parts of what appears to be almost a boilerplate AfD nomination which almost always goes along the lines of "Unverified original research with no evidence of notability". I first echo Xhandler's request to stop playing the bull in the china shop with Wikipedia articles. Secondly, I'll break this AfD down into its main policy arguments. As per your nomination, we have (admittedly severe) concerns over WP:N, particularly WP:FICT. Also from your nomination we have an assertation that this article should be deleted because it is pure WP:OR. Other editors have added (quite rightly) concerns about an in-universe perspective. However for the second time I challenge you to quote me the section of WP:DEL#REASON that permits you to delete this article based on it containing original research, as your three attempts last time seemed to cover just about everything but OR. I quote you my argument from one of your other AfDs:
to remind you that the majority of this article is only original research if the canon itself is completely discounted as a reference of any reliability, which is preposterous. I suggest to those who wish this article be deleted "because it's written in-universe" that, since this is almost trivial to correct, they actually have a go at improving it. To anyone who argues WP:FICT as a reason to delete this article, I ask you to please re-read it with particular emphasis on the phrase "The article can be deleted only if [options to transwiki or merge] are either redundant or unavailable". And having said all that, I buckle completely beneath the weight of the relevant sections of WP:N and WP:FICT and argue for a merge into Magic (Harry Potter)#Legilimency and Occlumency. Happy-melon 14:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)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.
- WP:NOR should tell you exactly why articles that are original research should be deleted. And for the record, Ms. Rowling's feelings on the subject constitute OR even if she's not the one who wrote it down here. I'll give you three points, however: First off, OR should be rather loosely applied to fiction articles where the only real source is the original books (what Rowling says in an interview shouldn't really be considered, but that's my opinion). Second, OR itself isn't reason for deletion unless the entire article is original. Third, the project should get a shot to handle it first before someone drags it to AfD, and it seems that's the case here. --UsaSatsui 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOR does not tell us to delete articles that contain original research, or even that contain mostly original research. WP:NOR gives us carte blanche to do anything necessary to an article to remove all original research. If, after removing all the OR, there's anything left, then OR is not grounds for deletion, which is precisely my point. I find it impossible to reconcile your comment above with your "Delete" rationale at the top of the page, since in the latter you appear to be advocating precisely that which you denounce in the former. I'm not sure I understand your point about OR being "rather lossely applied to fiction articles" - could you expand please so I know if I'm agreeing with you or arguing! Also, if Rowling's work is original research, so is Einstein's - there's nothing different about the way they wrote except that Einstein claimed he was talking about the real world, whereas Rowling claims she's not. As Wikipedia editors, we're not allowed to perform research of our own; we're allowed, and actively encouraged, to report on other people's. And as for your third point, as a very active member of WikiProject Harry Potter, I couldn't agree more that the project should be given every opportunity to beat articles into shape - are you saying that that has already happened, or that it should be allowed to happen? Happy-melon 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- You pretty much said what I just said: OR isn't a reason for deletion unless the article isn't worth keeping after it's removed. My comment about OR being loosely applied to fiction meant that we can't hold Harry Potter (an entirely original creation) to the same standard as, oh, quantum physics. As for Einstein, he's had many, many third party sources write about and critique his work. Rowling hasn't, and she could say one thing in one interview and something else the next, it's unverifiable. She's a first-party source. Only when it's been said in several print sources (or a book) would I accept it, but that's just my opinion. Yes, the project should be given a chance with the article, but we still have an AfD here, and it shouldn't be canceled just for that reason. My Delete stands because, in my opinion, there's nothing in the article worth saving. My comments above were a general statement. --UsaSatsui 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I... see... sort of! I'm glad we agree about OR not being a valid reason to delete. I also fully agree with you about holding fiction to a different standard to quantum physics. WP:FICT, unfortunately, doesn't!! What I meant about Rowling and Einstein was that both have done original research in their respective fields. We can, indeed are encouraged to, write about that work, as long as we don't do any more of it ourselves. An unsourced analysis of the implications of Einstein's work should no more be tolerated than an unsourced analysis of a magical art in Harry Potter. That's what OR is all about. However, just as, if we reference to Einstein commenting on his own work, that counts as a reliable source, if we reference Rowling commenting on hers (ie reference the books) that should also count as a reliable source. Of course it's ludicrous to consider Rowling a reliable source on quantum mechanics, or vice versa. That is the mistake I think a lot of people make: they think that because they wouldn't use JK Rowling to reference many other articles on Wikipedia, she's useless to reference anything. The reliability of sources should be judged based on their applicability to the subject matter. Happy-melon 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- You pretty much said what I just said: OR isn't a reason for deletion unless the article isn't worth keeping after it's removed. My comment about OR being loosely applied to fiction meant that we can't hold Harry Potter (an entirely original creation) to the same standard as, oh, quantum physics. As for Einstein, he's had many, many third party sources write about and critique his work. Rowling hasn't, and she could say one thing in one interview and something else the next, it's unverifiable. She's a first-party source. Only when it's been said in several print sources (or a book) would I accept it, but that's just my opinion. Yes, the project should be given a chance with the article, but we still have an AfD here, and it shouldn't be canceled just for that reason. My Delete stands because, in my opinion, there's nothing in the article worth saving. My comments above were a general statement. --UsaSatsui 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOR does not tell us to delete articles that contain original research, or even that contain mostly original research. WP:NOR gives us carte blanche to do anything necessary to an article to remove all original research. If, after removing all the OR, there's anything left, then OR is not grounds for deletion, which is precisely my point. I find it impossible to reconcile your comment above with your "Delete" rationale at the top of the page, since in the latter you appear to be advocating precisely that which you denounce in the former. I'm not sure I understand your point about OR being "rather lossely applied to fiction articles" - could you expand please so I know if I'm agreeing with you or arguing! Also, if Rowling's work is original research, so is Einstein's - there's nothing different about the way they wrote except that Einstein claimed he was talking about the real world, whereas Rowling claims she's not. As Wikipedia editors, we're not allowed to perform research of our own; we're allowed, and actively encouraged, to report on other people's. And as for your third point, as a very active member of WikiProject Harry Potter, I couldn't agree more that the project should be given every opportunity to beat articles into shape - are you saying that that has already happened, or that it should be allowed to happen? Happy-melon 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOR should tell you exactly why articles that are original research should be deleted. And for the record, Ms. Rowling's feelings on the subject constitute OR even if she's not the one who wrote it down here. I'll give you three points, however: First off, OR should be rather loosely applied to fiction articles where the only real source is the original books (what Rowling says in an interview shouldn't really be considered, but that's my opinion). Second, OR itself isn't reason for deletion unless the entire article is original. Third, the project should get a shot to handle it first before someone drags it to AfD, and it seems that's the case here. --UsaSatsui 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All i see here is a deletionist on a rampaage - no real reason to delete. Fosnez 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, covered sufficiently in the Magic (Harry Potter) article. --Eyrian 22:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, this is not enough information to signify its own article in my opinion! **Ko2007** 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, The person who nominated this also nominated the Harry Potter magic article the 2nd time, however it is nominated again! I think he just enjoys deleting things! **Ko2007** 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Guest9999 has been having a lot of fun with fictional articles recently. Happy-melon 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, The person who nominated this also nominated the Harry Potter magic article the 2nd time, however it is nominated again! I think he just enjoys deleting things! **Ko2007** 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Merge - There is no evidence of any outside universe information, a clear sign of a notability deficit. Judgesurreal777 03:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merge - into other Harry Potter articles. there is no reason why Harry-Potter-universe Potions,Charms, etc should exist while this should not CrossTimer 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I do not think any evidence has been given that shows the article meets WP:NN - there are no secondary sources and no real world content. Considering that Magic (Harry Potter)#Legilimency and Occlumency already has a sizeable amount of information on the topic so I think any merge would be redundant. [[Guest9999 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)]]
- Merge into the Magic (Harry Potter). I think that any extra informtion contained here should be added to the "Magic (Harry Potter) article, as it already tells a bit about legilimency/occlumency. I also don't think that this information should be considered original research as it is entirely fictional anyway. I might be wrong on that though, but it doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Shmooshkums 03:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. There are also no sources providing real world context. Jay32183 18:25, 31 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.
