Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End

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 Keep. Discussions on individual merges should take place on talk pages. Bduke 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinner's End

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Spinner's End
Spinner's End (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I am also nominating the following related articles:

Azkaban (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Beauxbatons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Durmstrang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Diagon Alley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Godric's Hollow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hall of Prophecies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hog's Head (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hogsmeade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Knockturn Alley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Little Hangleton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Little Whinging (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Riddle House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Shrieking Shack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All of these articles deal with locations from the Harry Potter series of books (and movies and games, etc…). I do not believe that they belong on Wikipedia, between them they do give one independent third party source. Violating the primary notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability which states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”. Furthermore the articles do not “contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources.” As mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Large parts of all the articles are original research – in fact since no sources are presented it could be said that they are completely original research which is unverified and often unverifiable Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. The articles may also go against WP:NOT#INFO given that they appear quite trivial. Harry Potter is obviously notable but that does not mean that everything in the books is - even items or places regarded as important or vital to the plot - if they do not meet the notability guideline. Notability is not inherited. A pub isn’t notable just because it’s in a notable town and there’s no reason why a fictional pub (or house or magic shop) should be notable just because it’s in a notable book. The articles are essentially an extension of the Harry Potter article and if they are not deemed important enough to be on that page do not merit their own articles. They may belong in a Harry Potter wiki but not on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Fancruft. Guest9999 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep — It's quite clear to me that these articles are encyclopaedic/notable. The nominator provides no substantial rationale to delete other than I Don't Like It. (WP:NOT#PAPER) Matthew 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Actually I do like it, I find the information interesting and would like to see it available on the internet, I just don't feel that it belongs on Wikipedia as it violates several important guideline and policies and so will never be an accurate or reliable encyclopaedia article. [[Guest9999 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Keep — Despite all the policies this may or may not violate, the "Harry Potter Series of Articles" is a fairly good set of articles, and personally I found the Harry Potter stuf on Wikipedia to be quite helpful in understanding "Harry Potter" the Phenomenon, so I think at least at this time that it does perform a very good and reasonable function here. John5Russell3Finley 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - First of all, the source is the books. Not OR. Some are more or less important yes, but I don't think it would be better not to have these. CHANDLERtalk 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Some of the sources are the books, some are fansites, some are blogs. Do the books themselves count as sources, if they do then shouldn't everything mentioned in every book have a Wikipedia page. Does this only apply for locations of significant importance in books which are well read enough - how do you define significant, how many copies need to be sold? The notability criteria is there for a reason. [[Guest9999 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Strong delete - per the very well-reasoned and -articulated nomination. Nothing has been offered here to rebut the policy concerns raised by the nomination other than "it's helpful" and the oft-bandied about and frequently mis-used WP:NOT#PAPER. "It's helpful" is just a flavor of WP:USEFUL and however useful an article may be it still needs to comply with all relevant policies and guidelines. The editor who referenced PAPER has been advised repeatedly exactly what the problem is with basing a keep on it and at this point I must seriously question whether he honestly does not understand that PAPER is not a free pass for any article or whether he is willfully disregarding that fact in the hope of confusing these discussions. WP:NOT#PAPER states explicitly This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. These articles do not. Otto4711 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge minor locations, keep major locations I'd count the following as very minor: Spinner's End (one book), Beauxbatons (not actually seen), Durmstrang (not actually seen), Hall of Prophecies (one book), Little Hangleton (There's several places in it - the Riddle House, the Gaunt House), but they're all fairly minor, and could be dealt with in an overview of minor locations), Little Whinging (Only one major place, the Dursley House), Shrieking Shack (a few things happen there, but they're best dealt with in plot summaries) St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (only really appears in Book 5) Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (Only in Book 6) The others seem more important, and, while I don't object to merging them, I think they should be discussed separately. Adam Cuerden talk 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Some secondary sources would perhaps solve notability and original research problems. Jakew 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • These seem to be prime candidates for heavy editing and a subsequent merge. These articles suffer from far too much in-universe detail per WP:WAF and need to be massively edited down, at which point most (if not all of them) could be safely merged into a single article, such as List of locations in Harry Potter. Having such detailed (particularly in-universe type detail) articles on fictional locations isn't really what an encyclopedia covers - perhaps there is an HP wiki or other fansite somewhere more suited to this level of information. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then that should be the target for the merge. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that there's three tiers: Azkaban, Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade appear in multiple books in major roles; Knockturn Alley, Godric's Hollow, Hog's Head, and Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place aren't as pervasive, but still have significant roles in multiple books. The other ones are very minor places that generally in only a single book, and so are simple to decide on - merge 'em all! Major fan sites like. hplexicon.org could probably be used for sourcing. I'd be inclined to deal with the easy ones right now, but those seven might be worth a little more discussion. Adam Cuerden talk 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Timan123 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Articles for deletion is not a vote WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, it is a discussion aimed towards forming a consensus - you should give a reason for your position. [[Guest9999 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Merge: As per Arkyan and Adam Cuerden above. -Adv193 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Arkyan and Adam Cuerden. Wl219 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Trim and Merge per Arkyan. Baring that, delete and Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep only keep Weasleys Wizard Wheezes, Diagon alley, hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, due to the fact that they have been moderately important if not majorly important. The others havent.Ko2007 18:20, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)
  • Comment The issue of "importance" has repeatedly come up in this debate. I do not see how importance is relevent, the spouse of a notable politician could be very important to them and have a great effect on their life but unless they were notable in their own right they wouldn't have an article. Importance is something that is subjective and hard to verify; notability as defined by the notability guideline is (to a point) not.[[Guest9999 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Basically, we accept that Harry Potter is notable. It's notable enough that sections have gotten split off of the main articles. This is standard Wikipedia policy, of course: Many articles have sub-articles to give more detail. Importance comes in when selecting what deserves its own article, and what should just redirect to a larger collection of information. The Harry Potter articles have fragmented too far, with very minor things getting their own article. It's fine for important locations that a lot has been said about to collect together the information on them. We have to figure out what's important. I'd say Ko2007 has it about right, though I'd add Azkaban (important plot elements in every book from the second on) and possibly remove Weasley's Wizard Wheezes (As a location, anyway - as a concept, it spans four books (The 4th to 7th), as a location we only see it in the 6th.) Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep them all for two reasons. Firstly, I greatly dislike bulk nominations. Secondly, the Harry Potter books are the most popular copyrighted books in history so it deserves a greater breadth of article coverage. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

This should reasonably sort out the articles. Note that a few non-nominated articles appear in this suggestion. Adam Cuerden talk 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: It is a work in progress but I like your initial suggestions. -Adv193 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Aye, wanted to try and come up with something sensible, since, well, if we're not careful, List of places in the Harry Potter books could get pretty random - for instance, putting Hall of Prophecies there when it's just one small part of the Ministry of Magic. And, for that matter, one which had only a few pages - The climax of Order of the Phoenix might be said to start there, but it rapidly leaves there and goes out into the rest of the Department of Mysteries, after all. Very little actually happens in the hall proper. Adam Cuerden talk 01:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Merge and Redirect I still question having any pages which do not meet the notability criteria. I would suggest merging all of the pages and then recreating the relavent articles if and when third party sources can be found. [[Guest9999 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]
        • That may be, but I think that properly sorting that is, frankly, too big of a job for one AfD. The Harry Potter articles are almost ridiculously sprawling, and it'd be better to work with the Harry Potter WikiProject than to do it by fiat. Adam Cuerden talk 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Harry Potter Wikiproject states it is "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Harry Potter universe" - this is at odds with Wikipedia policy and would be more approproate for a dedicated Harry Potter wiki or fansite. I do not see why it would be so difficult just to change all of the pages listed above to redirects to the List of places in the Harry Potter books article, it would then just be a case of expanding the current stubs. [[Guest9999 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Mostly Agree with Adam, abstain on Godric's Hollow and Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place. I know this isn't a vote, but I believe that the arguments on both sides apply to all articles, and it's a matter of judgment which are stronger for each. ** With regard to Guest9999's comment, WP:HP's charter is not a violation of WP policy, but as phrased it may go against guidelines. Matchups 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To my mind it would seem to go against WP:NOT#INFO but I see your point. Although in almost all cases it seems that - rightly or wrongly - policy and guidelines are used in the same way on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]
Aye, I'm not sure about those two either, hence why I listed them to be nominated - e.g. to have more discussion. Adam Cuerden talk 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - All are fictional places with no real world notability. A transwiki to a harry potter encyclopedia might also be appropriate Corpx 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into relevant articles, except for Keep Little Whinging, since it's mentioned in all the books. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment whilst I don't think that being in all the books should be a criteria for keeping the article, Little Whinging does actually have a BBC source attached ([[1]]). [[Guest9999 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Strong Keep, for such a successful franchise, these are notable topics. All these locations play important roles in the books. --musicpvm 06:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support transwiki, assumning that there is a wiki for this -- Simon Cursitor 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I second Adam's suggestions, with two differences. Merge Number 12 Grimmauld Place not with Order of the Phoenix, but with Black family, keeping the information, that it later became Headquarters of the Order. And Merge Weasley's Wizard Wheezes into Diagon Alley. The articles about Azkaban, Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade should definitely be kept, as all three locations play crucial roles in several Harry Potter books. Neville Longbottom 12:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the places are important in thier own way.Blackcat52 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Adam. Will (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Harry Potter Wikia (or delete) per numerous policies and guidelines, including WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. These heaping amounts of Harry Potter plot summary articles are alarming; this is a balanced, general use encyclopedia that combines some elements of specialist encyclopedias; it's not a free-for-all to rewrite books. Furthermore, we are a free encyclopedia; we should not be substituting reading the novel by documenting every minor plot and subplot aspect. A general overview of major aspects of a plot or setting are good as part of a larger, academically-treated topic. I used to get Cs on papers that were mere 20-page retellings. — Deckiller 04:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki - These articles do nothing but violate writing in fiction guidelines and should be sent packing. Judgesurreal777 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Strong Relist as is frequently the case, these are of unequal importance. I am puzzled how anyone could who think Azkaban unimportant as a recurrent plot element--or could think some of the others as similarly important. Let someone who has read and understood the books nominate the weakest. There is no way of sorting them out here--all such mixed nominations have ended up by being properly relisted individually.DGG (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Nobody ever said that Azkaban was unimportant - what is being said is that it is not notable - WP:NN [[Guest9999 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Keep When a series of books this notable creates a fictional universe, the geographical components of that universe deserve their own pages. I think the manner in which locations in Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia are treated is a good example. Simply because the Harry Potter series is more contemporary is no reason why it should not be afforded the same treatment by wikipedia. Bjoel5785 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.
OR, delete also the following articles: Byss, Alderaan, Ebaq 9, Hoth, Lehon, Corellia, Bajor, Benzar, Khitomer, Qo'noS, Arda, Black Gate (Middle-earth), Misty Mountains, well, I won't go on. You can see the idea - these are just randomly selected articles about places in other fictional series (Star Trek, Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings, respectively. I could have picked other series but those were the ones that sprung to mind first). None of them are likely to have any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", because they can't be separated from their subject!! I haven't checked each article so there might be an exception, but if so there are many more articles of this type to replace it By the definition of "notable" above, none of these articles, or any article about a fictional place, person, or event etc, can EVER be noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. And yet there can be no argument that these articles are not looked at and considered useful by thousands of readers and researchers. Either we accept that articles such as these have a place in Wikipedia, or we accept that there are literally thousands of articles about fictional places, people etc which need to be deleted for being "not notable". I will not be party to such a massacre, so I choose to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules to supercede a blatant use of the letter, rather than the spirit, of WP:N.
If this AfD closes as keep, I will be eager to help merge some of these pages into other articles, not because of their notability, but because the quantity of information in some of them does not justify separation. However, I believe that articles about fictional places should be judged based on their notability within the relevant work of fiction rather than the real world. If there is enough information given in canon to create a decently long article, it meets my critera for notability on Wikipedia. Happy-melon 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:FICT; it provides a logical extension of WP:N for fiction. — Deckiller 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:FICT is essentially what I have a problem with, not WP:N (which works extremely well for factual articles). Your point on WP:NOTINHERITED is taken and will, as I mention, result in my active participation in the merging of some of these articles which cannot justify their notability within the subject matter (for instance, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang). However, I do not believe that my argument is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which, incidentally, is neither policy nor guidline). I am not arguing that one other article exists. I am not even arguing that twenty other articles exist. I am arguing that a measurable fraction of the entire article namespace fails the same criteria. The fact that these articles exist, are read by Wikipedia readers and are useful to them, implies that it is policy, not the articles, that are at fault. Happy-melon 10:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The guideline was updated recently to adhere to recent movements at AfD and merger/transwiki proposals, as well as to comply to WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N. The problem doesn't really lie with WP:FICT, since it's now a logical extention of those guidelines and policies. You are right that there are still a ton of fiction articles that should comply with the new WP:FICT should it remain consensus. As for useful, well, a phonebook or directory is useful, as is a detailed summary of a work's plot (the plot consists of the story, setting, and characters), but these are things that Wikipedia is Not. I think that's your fundamental disagreement may lie with WP:NOT. — Deckiller 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That is quite possible. However, an AfD is not the place to argue such a fundamental policy! Happy-melon 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The policy requires that these fictional articles actually are notable enough to have their own articles; just put it into a "locations of harry potter", which MAY have enough notability to stay. Besides, the examples you cited are dubious; the locations in lord of the rings are far more notable that Rowlings, since Tolkien probably wrote whole books on his locations and their influences, and then there are many reactions to the books and movies. These locations do not seem to have near that notability. Judgesurreal777 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Whenever someone argues other stuff exists I get a sudden urge to nominate for deletion the articles the person is using to make their argument. Many of the articles you listed are indeed not notable outside the work in which they appear, however, the mere existence of articles about places in other works of fiction do not excuse these. All articles on Wikipedia must meet policy, the order it is enforced in does not matter. --Phirazo 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Happy-melon. Well said. Flyer22 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Happy-melon. How can one argue fictional places are non-notable? We can add the plethora of comic book characters, obscure to the point of idiocy, except "in universe". We could carry the the non-notable argument to the thousands of cricket players included on Wikipedia. How could any sports player, other than Jackie Robinson, have a place in Wikipedia? Either way, clean up or merge as needed. No reason to delete.--Knulclunk 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW I came to this page through Diagon Alley, a quite thorough and informative article, if you are looking for information on Diagon Alley.--Knulclunk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that many thousands of sports players other than Jackie Robinson have been the subject of multiple secondary sources. I'm not 100% sure that your arguement is serious, given that many have multiple books written solely about them and are mentioned in newspapers and magazines on an almost daily basis. Additionally the fact that probably around 90% of articles on fiction probably fail WP:NN doesn't mean that it is right that they exist. If the notability guideline is so wrong on so many artcles it should be rewritten. [[Guest9999 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • If a guideline is rewritten to satisfy a recent trend or consensus, then there will still be many articles that need to comply. Of course many articles won't meet the guideline (yet), but it's not a solid reason to change it; otherwise, we'd have no change on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it would be quite hard to rewrite the notability criteria to allow pages on subjects which have not been mentioned by any secondary sources. In fact I would say it is impossible as it would allow pretty much anything to have a page in Wikipedia which would go against "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", one of the fundamental principles (five pillars) of Wikipedia. Additionally the notability criteria for Fiction has recently been changed (by consensus) in order to ensure that it goes along with the primary notability criteria (as well as other guidelines) of which it is meant to be a logical conclusion of. [[Guest9999 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • I'm confused. I was arguing in favor of the new WP:FICT (I wrote and presented it for discussion). Since it's difficult to rewrite the notability criterion, then wouldn't it be up to the articles to comply? — Deckiller 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry I think that I may have got my wires crossed, basicly my opinion isWP:FICT now matches WP:NN (which it should have always doen as it was meant to be derived from it)thousands of articles like these do not meet WP:NN (and so by definiton do not meet WP:FICT). Altering or discarding WP:NN to include such articles would likely be completely unmanagable and to the detrement of Wikipedia (apart from the fact that there is no consensus to do such) hence all of these articles should be deleted as per policy. I think maybe we agree? [[Guest9999 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Actually, I think it's my fault; I was responding to the wrong person above. We do agree. I think the only area we disagree is that I prefer testing merging and transwiki before deletion; if this can be transwikied to a Wikia, then all the better. — Deckiller 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I won't try to separate these into ones that might belong in a "List of Harry Potter locations" or somesuch. If you want a serious discussion, don't nominate more than 2 or 3 at a time. --Fang Aili talk 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep - The articles nominated are of vastly different notability. Azkaban, for example, is an obvious keep. However, I think there should be no prejudice for the nominator renominating these articles individually. Savidan 15:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question? Why is Azkaban an obvious keep - it has no secondary sources - none have been mentioned in this debate and some of the current article such as the section entitled "Inspiration" is pure speculation and origional research. The rest of it is probably covered within the plot descriptions of the books in which it is involved - if it is truly an important part of the books which seems to be most people's rational for allowing it to go against WP:NN - so the article should be redundant anyway. [[Guest9999 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Keep and relist separately. Some of these should probably be merged into a list of Harry Potter places, others should be kept (and notability established using secondary sources like this, this, this, this and so forth). The only way to get a coherent consensus on which ones merit keeping and which ones should be merged is to list them separately. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Cyclone49 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to divide the question (sorry, it's the parliamentarian in me - for simplicity's sake, let's call it a weak procedural keep). As much as I would like to see all of these largely unnecessary articles deleted in one fell swoop, these articles should be considered separately and on their own merits, rather than as a large group that does not take into account all of their differences. I would be willing to concede keeping Azkaban or something like that, but I can't really work that into a !vote here, so they really should be individually listed. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I would, however, like to say that I completely agree with the nominator and would like to commend him for his excellent policy-based arguemnt. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, As i have said before, the "importance" or "notability", of locations such as Hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, weasleys wizard wheezes, etc... as I listed ...
  • Keep only keep Weasleys Wizard Wheezes, Diagon alley, hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, due to the fact that they have been moderately important if not majorly important. The others havent.Ko2007 18:20, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)

and delete or merge the rest respectively. Ko2007 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Emphatic keep. - Gilgamesh 08:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Without a doubt.
  • Keep. I think that a lot of the suggestions for mergers are good, as a lot of these don't deserve their own article. However, the original nom to delete all is unreasonable. Somebody Else's Problem(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not one policy has been proffered for a keep; all comments can amount to "I like it". The articles are WP:OR and there are no reputable sources provided. The nomination does a good job of identifying the other areas where policy is ignored for the sake of fans liking their cruft. I would suggest getting a personal blog and focus these efforts there; none of these articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The nominator used 257 words to present essentially two arguments: failure of WP:OR and failure of notability under WP:FICT. I can blow away half of that in one 'word': WP:DEL#REASON - presence of original research is not justification to delete. It is justification to edit the articles as severely as may be necessary to remove it. If all that's left at the end is a redirect, so be it!! The nominator's argument under WP:FICT is the only one with credence. I would like to think that my argument displays use of policy as well as common sense, even if the fundamental argument is that I disagree with WP:FICT almost in its entirety. You may disagree again - that is, of course, your prerogative. Happy-melon 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - saying you disagree with WP:FICT is saying that you don't believe that WP:NN should be applied to fiction. Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope - what happens when other people decide it shouldn't apply to biographies or places or bands. Personally I do disagree with you, I think that the information contained in these articles and articles like these does not belong in an encyclopaedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia WP:5P - it would be entirely appropriate for a Harry Potter Wiki. Wikipedia is not meant to be a single unified source for all human knowledge WP:NOT#INFO. Also I felt it would make my case stronger if I explained my reasoning rather than juts giving a couple of links to policies. [[Guest9999 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Keep per Happy-melon. Btw, I am tired of "arguments" like "phonebook". --Dezidor 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with a follow-up trim and merge for some per Adam and others. I recommend merging into other articles where notability has been established, so that the information is not lost but is instead placed in a different article. I am not going to elaborate on which I believe should be merged and where and which should be kept; AfD does not govern merges. However, I agree that most of these articles do not merit their own individual article, and, as one of the current goals of the WP:WPHP is trying to cut down on the number of articles we have without necessarily trying to eradicate the information found in those articles, I think a merge is the best option. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep all. Here's my point-by-point rebuttal for the nomination:

  • Nominator says: “WP:N – no secondary sources given.” I say: Hello! In case nobody’s noticed, there are thousands of books about Harry Potter. I’m not talking about the hundreds of thousands of blogs, fansites and other non-acceptable sources, I’m referring to published books available in bookstores around the globe. These books analyze every aspect of the Harry Potter story including the significance of locations. It is true that these nominated articles are lacking sources, but sources could be added – deletion is not necessary. Here’s a few of the books that discuss fictional locations in Harry Potter. These are available from Amazon, which has thousands of other books about Harry Potter: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I could go on and on.
  • Nominator says: “WP:NOR and WP:NOT#OR” I say: The subjects of these articles can be easily verified as not being original research, so the nominator’s concern must be with the content. In that case, delete the content that is original research, not the whole article.
  • Nominator says: “WP:NOT#INFO” I say: These locations are all essential to the plot of the most successful series of fiction ever. Hardly “indiscriminate information.” Not one of them could be left out – at the very least, merge a few of them together instead of deleting them. Their notability stands on its own and is not inherited as suggested. If it was inherited, we’d only have one Harry-Potter-related article on Wikipedia.
  • Nominator says: “WP:FAN” I say: That’s an essay, not Wikipedia policy or even a guideline. Although the presence of these articles is certainly influenced by a few million worldwide Harry Potter fans, the articles need to be cleaned up and properly sourced to avoid this label.

Happy-melon I think put it best. (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, that's a Wikipedia policy.) The rebuttal to Happy-melon's arguments says “Look at WP:FICT”, but that guideline states that deletion should be the last resort, after all other options are unavailable, not the firstline response. Besides, as I've said, the Harry Potter universe (including locations therein) has been the subject of numerous works of secondary information and therefore passes notability requirements, even if the individual articles need improvement and sources. Jaksmata 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Jaksmata. How much longer is this debate going to stay open?? It looks like keep to snowball keep to me - only one delete against 17 keeps in the last 4 days, or 28 keeps against 17 deletes, merges, redirects and transwikis (all lumped together) overall. Although, of course, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, we do seem to have built something of a consensus over the last few days!! Happy-melon 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Until someone gets around to putting up templates on thirty-some articles to announce the result... Adam Cuerden talk 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of these (Azkaban) are certainly more deserving of an article than others (Spinner's End). But none of these deserve to be deleted. If it is decided that they definitely should not have their own articles (and some shouldn't), they should be merged somewhere relevant. It would be a disservice to just outright delete them without salvaging the good bits. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:09, 22 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.