Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Harry Potter newspapers and magazines}} – (View AfD)(View log)

The page describes a fictional topic without any real world context or information - it is effectively a plot summary for a specific part of series of books. It has been decided by consensus and put into policy that articles of this type should not be included in Wikipedia even if they meet standards of verifiability and notability - see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:DEL#REASON (second reason on the list). I do not think that the information and sourcing required to bring the article up to standard - by basing it around real world information such as the development, reaction and critical analysis of the fictional concept - exists at this point in time. Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep adequate notability at this point thanks to the movies as well as the books. JJL (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:*Reply - General consensus is that notability is not inherited (links to an essay), I believe (having not actually been a participant in any of the discussions) that the issue has come up several times in the past and in each instance inherited notability has been rejected by the community. Also since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has been decided by consensus that certain types of article - such as detailed plot summaries - are not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]]

:Comment The introduction is currently very short, but that is where notability and tying into all other HP articles is established. Perhaps it just needs some expansion. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the last deletion went to deletion review and was overturned due to the real world notability and significance being clearly established. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

:No reason was given for the deletion review decision by the closing adim and I would dispute your interpretation. The main points brought up during deletion review were that there was no consensus to delete in the original AfD and that several arguements for deletion simply stated there were no sources - which was incorrect as sources were found during the course of the debate - both of these reasons were perfectly valid. Guest9999 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]

::Personally I still do not think that the topic is notable (due to lack of significant coverage by independent secondary sources) but my main point in nomination was that the article is effectively just a detailed plot summary - which are specificly excluded by policy; also note consennsus can change. Guest9999 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep I know lots of people use Wiki to write fanfiction, and I know I do. Deleting this would hurt the poeple who want to learn and use this to make their fanfic factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.204.26 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

:Surely people writing fanfiction will have read the books, there is nothing in in this article that is not in the books. If you didn't know already, there is a Harry Potter Wiki [http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page] which would probably be a better source for any fanfiction you want to write as its content is not limited by such things as notability or the requirement for real world information. It is - likely - compiled and edited by people who have a great interest in and are big fans of Harry Potter who are probably more in touch with the needs of a fanfiction writer than the general Wikipedian. Guest9999 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Delete, still fancruft with no real world notability. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and notability is not inherited. --Coredesat 10:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Harry Potter universe. Despite the real-world sources, there is no real-world content, but I can see why some of the content in this article would be of interest. Yes, Harry Potter universe is already long, but the answer is to trim the unnecessary stuff, not expand the plot into new articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I don't think the article has enough content in it to justify separation from the main universe article. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Insufficient real-world context for an independent article and smacks of fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• What about merging into Fictional books? Lord Opeth (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it concerns a memorable aspect of the film, the article is presented in a discriminate manner, and the article contains references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:*Comment every article descriminates (apart from List of Everything) - not a reason to keep. Guest9999 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

:**Therefore, calling this article "indiscriminate" is inaccurate and not a reason to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::*I do not think anyone has called the article indiscriminate - what people have refered to is the policy WP:NOT#INFO, which states Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection fo information. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of all information, it is an encyclopaedia and so discriminates in it's content; therefore sometimes even if content may meet standards of WP:V (which I do not think this article does) it is deemed not suitable for inclusion. It is essentially a counterpoint to WP:NOT#PAPER: Wikipedia could potentially be about anything but is not. Guest9999 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

::**If Wikipedia is established with the goal to "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then we can and should be more open-minded with our content than any other encyclopedia. Some think Wikipedia should be a collection of as much factually accurate information as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::::*I agree that some - maybe even a large proportion of Wikipedians - agree with that view, however current policy goes against it (with WP:NOT#INFO and other inclusion criteria) and policy is meant to represent the consensus of the community as a whole (if such a thing actually ever exists). Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

:::::*Those pages are also edited practically daily and we also have an ignore all rules policy. Regarding consensus, if a page is deleted and consensus changes to keep it, it is much easier to just leave the article or redirect/merge without deleting so that when consensus does change everyone doesn't have to start over from scratch. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::*True, but in that case why delete any article as consensus can always change. If the consensus is that an article shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia now then it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia now. If consensus does then change, deleted information can be retreived by an admin if it is deemed appropriate. Leaving the history just allows users - who often aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidlines - to go against consensus and spend time creating articles that will be speedy deleted (G4). Guest9999 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

:::::::*Truthfully, we probably should not delete any article that is not libelous or a hoax as the community clearly does not have a consensus on what is and is not "encylopedic." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::::*Would you then say that the many current policies and guidelines which deal with inclusion criteria (such as WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NN, WP:OR) are not supported by the consensus of the community? Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]]

:::::::::*To some extent, I think it is accurate to say that a sizable segment of our contributors are not entirely in agreement on those policies as their talk pages and edit histories would suggest. Clearly there is no firm consensus on what is and is not notable or what Wikipedia should or should not be, as these clarifications are debated almost constantly. Consider the last couple of weeks of edits to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&action=history NOT] article. If you look in the edit summaries, you'll see, "rv, it is not an attempt to slant anything, thanks for the assumption of good faith. it's a statement of the way things are," "rv policy alteration with no consensus nor discussion," "you might want to discuss and seek a consensus for that edit," "people keep getting this wrong," etc. With all those reverts, how can I even cite that article as policy, considering that the time at which I might cite it might look notably different than it will a couple of hours and edits later? Thus, we should err on the side of not discouraging or turning off good faith editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::*I think the reality is that whatever happens to the policies and guidelines a significant proportion of the community is not going to be happy. If the issue persists the result could well be some kind of schism or exodus from the project. Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]]

:::::::::::*Well, I definitely agree with you there. By the way, I might not be able to reply again for the next few hours as I am thinking of getting the PPV for UFC 79 to watch with my dad. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per User:Sgeureka. Luckystars (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-Just needs some work that's all. Sources and what not can come if it is worked on. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One thing this article is not is a "detailed plot summary". The subject runs through the entire series, and a detailed plot summary of that would be about 60 timers longer than this article. Even the briefest possible plot summary would be longer than this article. When WP:NOT says "plot" it should br read literally. plot, characters, setting, are all separate elements of fiction. And I dont see what indiscriminate has to do with it--this is about something very specific things, and the more important received the greater coverage. If we started covering all the magazines invented in fan fiction that might be open to reasonable objection. DGG (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:*As stated above, the policy in qestion (WP:NOT#INFO states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection if information" as "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The policy is not meant to refer to the topics of individual articles, all topics (apart from List of Everything discriminate information to some extent, making the idea almost meaningless. Guest9999 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep, agree with DGG, appears to be a misunderstanding of WP:NOT.--Aldux (talk) 14:25, 30 December 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.