Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in 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 Snowball keep, non admin closure. Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. -- saberwyn 11:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spells in Harry Potter

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination)
Spells in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Spells in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I think it could be argued that the article does not meet notability the primary notability guideline - no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources (Wikipedia:Notability), (I don't think Harry Potter Lexicon is considered a reliable secondary source). Since the equivalent article for non-canonical spells was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter) seemed like this one should also be up for discussion. Guest9999 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Oh no you didnt! This page is great! ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Cast a deletion spell on it. Not at all a notable fork of the almighty Potter. Spells in a fantasy series are not notable enough, and can't be verified by reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep only because it doesn't seem to violate any policies. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • edit-conflicted x2 Keep- article is very encyclopedic; it not only provides the list of spells, it explains each one of them and includes more non-trivial information than many lists. It is properly sourced, IMO, and is a B-class article that is discussed constantly. I can't believe it would be nominated for deletion. Afd is not the place for your concerns. If you've got a problem with the references, tag it with {{refimprove}} --Boricuaeddie 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT#IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The article does not fall within any of the arguments presented by WP:NOT#INFO. --Boricuaeddie 02:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Point taken. I still believe that the spells are trivial and cannot be properly sourced from reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, spells are trivial, but the article is most definitely not. It includes valuable information and descriptions of every spell. I trust the sources. If you don't, tag it with {{refimprove}}. --Boricuaeddie 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Your last argument still translates to WP:USEFUL in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
              • You didn't read WP:USEFUL entirely. It says "In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." (my argument is bolded) This article is of interest to many people, and is very encyclopedic. Your point is invalid. --Boricuaeddie 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is very well written, a world away from the usual fancruft. I cannot find any WP policy that this article would violate. As per reliable sources, I guess Harry Potter books are the obvious one. --Targeman 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, what exactly would you expect to find in third-party sources? A confirmation that what is written in Harry Potter is actually written there? I think a page number and the ISBN code of the book where each spell is mentioned are more than sufficient. --Targeman 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, just like with the non-canonical spells page, I think this should stay. Of course, I'm sure the stifling codgers of Wikipedia will find some way to delete this. GlassCobra 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for insulting me :-) Would you be willing to provide a more valid rationale? This is a violation of WP:ILIKEIT. --Boricuaeddie 02:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasn't insulting you; near as I can tell, you want to keep this too, which puts us on the same side, amigo. I realize that maybe my one-sentence initial justification is a violation of WP:ILIKEIT, but what about the other things that have been cited? Like to whoever said that this list and the non-canon spells list before were cruft (and I do distinctly remember several people saying it, what about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Ever read it, or did that one escape your notice? On another note, yes, Wikipedia articles ought to have third-party sources, but have you tried using common sense? Articles need third-party sources when, for example, they need proof that they even exist (like the moon landing hoax). However, I think that in this particular sense there are some pretty reputable sources, like, oh, I don't know...the books that they appeared in, maybe? What about books that someone else has mentioned, The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? Get your heads on straight, guys, and use your energy to argue about articles that actually cause problems. GlassCobra 06:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • By the way, Eddie, besides the first few, the "you"s in that mini-rant weren't actually aimed at you, but rather the people who will (inevitably) vote to delete this article. Sorry for any confusion and/or hurt feelings. GlassCobra 08:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe the books that could be used to justify having the names and effects of the spells (Although I still think that might - rightly or wrongly - be against policy) but things like the etymology are not mentioned in the books and are probably pure original research (Wikipedia:No original research). Unless someone has stated somewhere that the words are directly related from the particular real word in Latin (or whatever language) isn't it just the assumption fo the editor. [[Guest9999 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • That I can agree with. Although most etymologies are transparent to anyone who knows Latin, many of them remain dubiously justified in the article. Unless the author of the series has confirmed the etymologies, they should be deleted from the article as OR.--Targeman 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Etymology is actually something easy to source. All you'd need is a Latin dictionary. FrozenPurpleCube 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It would then still be original research unless one can source the author confirming the etymologies given are correct, i.e. those are indeed where she got the idea for the chosen phase from. -- KTC 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Those links don't really show much, just that the names of a few spells are emntioned in some news articles. Should the page then just be a list of 6 spell names? [[Guest9999 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • The links should appeal to common sense, if nothing else. Many of these spells have currency in popular culture or the mainstream media. I could see an article for each spell being a problem; but what we have instead is a useful, benign, and encyclopedic index for terms, many of which are notable in themselves, that originate from an exceptionally notable work of fiction. Ichormosquito 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. -- KTC 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a fairly obvious WP:SNOW case here. I'm leaving it to the admins to close this one, since a.) I voted in this myself, and b.) it's only been open a few hours. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Yes, I must agree with FrozenPurpleCube that the spells of the Harry Potter universe are significant enough to be retained on Wikipedia. Acs4b T C U 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I still don't think that any arguements have been made as to my original point that it fails the primary notability criteria.[[Guest9999 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Comment - Would you be satisfied if editors reference some of the many secondary Harry Potter works that list and explain spells, such as The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? Ichormosquito 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I should probably add that I haven't read any of those, I'm only making an educated guess as to their contents. Ichormosquito 05:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. — Ichormosquito 05:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is plenty notable. This is important information that Harry Potter fanatics need to have available at all times. I know it's useful, because I just used it to check the spelling of a hex that I just shouted at my friend. I agree that some sources should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.107.35.118 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a valuable source when we want to translate any Harry Potter stuff to other languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.74.189 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Harry Potter series extremely notable and the spells are an intricate and crucial part of the book. This is a good guide. I accessed it tonight when I couldn't remember what the "Fidelius Charm" was. It would have been a real pain to have to go back into the old books to find when it was first described. When I found this tonight, I was unhappy to see it nominated. I suppose it COULD be merged ito the Harry Potter series article, but then that article would be too big. There are published works with the same information available, but I don't have access to them at the moment. If someone is truly worried about the reliability of the sources here, they should do the work themselves instead of just putting the article in AFD. nut-meg 07:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point. I stated this in the deletion debate for the non-canon spells, but it holds true here as well: this article ought to be improved instead of just deleted. GlassCobra 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasn't worried abount the reliability of sources, I was worried that no reliable, independent third party sources actually existed. [[Guest9999 10:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Keep This article is very useful, valuable and of a good standard. With the recent release of Deathly Hallows it was relentlessly vandalised with specualtion, but the hard-working editors of the page (myself included) have kept it to a minimum, insisting that everything is sourced. I also agree with previous editor's comments about this only being here because it is considered fancruft or whatever. If anyone has a problem with the article, they should fix it instead of trying to delete it. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Close I think it's pretty clear what the consensus is by now and I think I was a bit hasty with the AfD tag. I still think it's important that the article actually cites some sources (maybe the books mentioned above or at least HP references) and that sections such as the etymology and pronounciation are likely pure origional research but I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. [[Guest9999 10:10, 3 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.