Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythical creatures in 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythical creatures in Harry Potter

The article is a recitation of other myths, coupled with plot summary from the Harry Potter books. The article basically says nothing, has no notability, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 06:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Although I've seen other articles like this which have been kept, most of the article consists of "Main article" and "See also". If there was major expansion, maybe things would be different, but there's nothing new here that isn't already written in the creature's main articles. Spawn Man 06:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That isn't actually true. Because "...in popular culture" sections are being hunted down and killed right now, much of the information regarding mythical creatures in Harry Potter has been removed from other pages. Serendi^podous 08:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note - You may want to add Minor Harry Potter beasts to this AfD or start up one for it - although it's written better, it's the same type of content as this AfD's article. Spawn Man 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you would start it that would be great. :) Hint hint. Judgesurreal777 07:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hint hint - no. Spawn Man 07:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to. Judgesurreal777 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding. Let's just see what the outcome of this AfD is eh? Spawn Man 05:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So was I LOL I already started it :) Judgesurreal777 05:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Great minds think alike. ;) Spawn Man 06:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. In the Harry Potter universe, which must be classified as major, the presence of centaurs, giants, and leprechauns plays a major part of the books' atmosphere, as much as the spells and magical artifacts do. In terms of notability, each mythical creature has about the same individual notability as a minor-to-mid-importance character, and probably does not need a separate article, however merged lists are appropriate. Per WP:LIST, the page provides a purpose as as information, and perhaps more importantly, navigation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Like much of the Harry Potter stuff around here which will never be deleted because of obsessed fan brigades, this article doesn't even come close to meeting the basic inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia, this one in particular. Complete lack of third party sources. This stinks of original research. Nothing in this has real world notability. Notability is not inherited, simply because the Harry Potter books are notable doesn't make every ghoul, goblin, and plot device from the novels notable. This is the real world. Someone needs to start a Harry Potter wiki now and get this nonsense out of the encyclopedia, in my opinion. IvoShandor 08:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any useable material to Minor Harry Potter beasts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is just an article of links to other articles and most of these creatures weren't created by Rowling. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with Minor Harry Potter beasts into Magical creatures in Harry Potter. We don't need 2 separate lists, but the topic of magical creatures in the series is certainly notable and essential to the 7 book story arc. Wl219 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's no end to this sort of thing. "Building in Harry Potter", "Fashion in Harry Potter", etc. It follows the form of a Wikipedia article without having the notable content necessary. Notability is not inherited. MarkBul 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki....List of characters in HP is sufficient, we dont need a list of everything in harry potter Corpx 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the creator of this article, I would say that. But no, I disagree with the original thesis that this article only repeats other myths. Many mythical creatures, such as giants, centaurs and merpeople, play important roles in the series, and this page was designed to discuss them as they appeared in the novels, not as they appeared in myth. Many young people asssume that Rowling created many of these creatures (I know this from previous edits I've had to revert), and this page was designed to end confusion. Serendi^podous 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, but that kind of discussion would require sourcing, otherwise it is OR and synthesis, which doesn't look promising in this article. And if this article didn't exist, they would go to those articles and find out. Judgesurreal777 15:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; what additional sources would be required? Serendi^podous 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything that meets the requirements laid out at policy and guideline pages like WP:V or WP:RS, say, something not by Rowling.

IvoShandor 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What would they need to verify? Everything is in the books themselves. This article makes no points, it draws no conclusions. All it does is say that these things are in the books. Serendi^podous 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You see, that's the problem. Imagine you couldn't say anything already in the books; could you talk about how Rowling came up with them? Could you talk about how audiences and reviewers responded to her use of myth in the books? There is none of that here... the article just tells us what's in the book, and that's not what wikipedia is for. Judgesurreal777 15:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But again, Wikipedia is riddled with lists like this. Some of them are featured. Many of them are entirely in-universe. What's the difference? Serendi^podous 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a featured one? I grant the other two points. Judgesurreal777 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the obvious example for an in-universe featured list would be Narnian timeline. Serendi^podous 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that list passes because the author helped construct the timeline and if you only read the book you wouldn't necessarily know a lot of that information, such as when events correspond and such...that's my guess...Judgesurreal777 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you only read the Harry Potter books, you might not know that many of the creatures in them are from myth and folklore. You must understand the ridiculous circumstances out of which this list arose. For a long time, Minor Harry Potter beasts was the only page on Wikipedia to gain any information on grindylows, despite the fact that Rowling didn't invent them. People were editing the pages of mythic creatures in Harry Potter saying how Rowling must have "got" the idea from monster X to TV show Y. It was insane. Serendi^podous 16:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's good that people found that out, but if there is something useful to say, why are there no references? Couldn't a sentence or two just be added to the mythic creatures themselves on their pages? Judgesurreal777 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the original system we had in place, but then people started deleting pop culture references left and right, so Harry Potter references aren't safe there anymore. Serendi^podous 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find anything that Rowling said about these fictional characters that doesn't come from the book, add it to the Harry Potter Universe article, that would be a good spot, since your right they can be strict about how many references from popular culture they have for those mythical creatures. Judgesurreal777 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. How would a few sentences added to the Wizard world article help kids understand which Harry Potter creatures are mythical and which aren't? Serendi^podous 11:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added a quote from Rowling to the lead, illustrating the issue at stake. I doubt it will be enough, but there you are. Rowling is not and never has been a fount of information about her work. Serendi^podous 15:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep When you read the book articles for example, you wont understand what some of these creatures are if they're not linked to this page, easy keep. And stop going on deletion sprees. just looks like a old case of the Dont likes. Chandlertalk 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What? No, it's not "I don't like it" at all. And your rationale is not in any way related to actual wikipedia guidelines. Judgesurreal777 21:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the informations to the other articles about the creatures in Harry Potter. Neville Longbottom 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Look. To solve this problem, this is what I will do: I will merge this article with Minor Harry Potter beasts and Magical beasts (Harry Potter) to create a single, giant "beasts" article. Much of the information in "Magical beasts" can be ditched anyway. I will then pepper this new article with as many Rowling quotes as I can find. Fair enough? Serendi^podous 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you've got the idea, that way wikipedia will have unique information and not just plot regurgitation. Bravo! :) Judgesurreal777 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Magical beasts (Harry Potter) into this one, and axe unnecessary ones. (A good deal) i ^said 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT. How are mythical creatures as envisioned by Rowling notable? Axem Titanium 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not follow WP:WAF and doesn't independently meet WP:N. Notability is not inherited, and these topics don't have notable, reliable third-party coverage IIRC. bwowen talk•contribs 04:16, 11 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.