Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths 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} 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in Harry Potter[edit]

Listcruft, Wikipedia is not a collection of... Will ^(talk) 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could become a real article in addition to just a raw list. Published sources discuss the number of deaths in HP. Some people claim the books are inappropriate or try to ban them because of the deaths. Savidan 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is, and almost certainly never will be, any real world perspective in a list of in-universe events. 17Drew 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now until more elements are provided this should be only mentionned in which of the episodes in which the deaths had happened, otherwise, it does not add that much to what it is mentionned in each of the articles right now.--JForget 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What with the vast number of deaths in the seventh book this is a valuable article for knowing who was killed and by whom.--Benjamintchip 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to 17Drew's comment ("There is, and almost certainly never will be, any real world perspective in a list of in-universe events"), the real world perspective is completely irrelevant because this article refers to what happens in a work of fiction. If real world perspective were a criterion for keeping articles then every article on Harry Potter and every article on any other fictional literary, television, or film series should also be deleted. This, of course, would be insane and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. --Benjamintchip 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to JForget's comment that "it does not add that much to what it is mentionned [sic] in each of the articles right now," I'm going to have to counter that it provides a convenient one-stop list for anyone looking to see who was killed when and by whom without having to dig through dozens of other articles to try and find out the answer. It also makes it much easier for anyone who is trying to find out just how many people have been killed throughout the series.--Benjamintchip 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not bold the word keep multiple times; this is not a vote. You don't appear to understand what in-universe means. A decent article about a, for example, fictitional character will not be in-universe since it should contain real world information such as how the character was developed, how the character was received by critics, etc. As a good example, note how at least half of the Jack Sparrow article is about non-fictional aspects of the character. There's little, if anything, non-fictional about Voldemort killing some Bulgarian woman. 17Drew 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Savidan -Lemonflash ^talk 23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA that has little baring on the encyclopedic treatment of the Harry Potter series. --Farix (Talk) 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While narrative information is all well and good, a table can often help form connections that my otherwise be missed. For example, after reviewing this table, I realized that the only student that is credited by name with actually killing anything is Neville Longbottom, who kills the snake Nagini. Harry never kills anyone directly. He kills a diary which ends a not yet fully corporeal Tome Riddle and the wand kills Voldemort. So Harry has not actually killed any humans. Only the Basilick in Chamber of Secrets. With all the spells flying, is seems that a student should have killed someone, if only by accident during one of the seven books. I never would have realized this without this table. --Bogert 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — Bogert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keeep works of fiction are part of the real world, and a description of what is in them is appropriate for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fictional works are part of the real world. That's why, for example, the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article exists and provides a non-fictional context, such as details about its release and the reception from critics. But minor plot details do not have any impact on the real world. 17Drew 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, since the decision about what to do with one of these articles may affect the decision about what to do with the other. Deor 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Seems like terribly trivial information.Montco 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA Marc Shepherd 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add citations to reviewers commenting on the number of deaths in the novels. (As I noted in the other AfD, in my local newspaper this article was headlined "WHO WILL DIE?". The question of who dies in HP books has been the subject of non-trivial speculation in mainstream publications.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. -- Jelly Soup 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way does the profusion of HP-related sub-articles meet WP:FICT. This accumulation of trivia is damaging to the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. Espresso Addict 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this is is a list of fictional characters dying (most of whose deaths, I assume, would also be mentioned in the plot summaries of the books in question). If there was non-trivial independent coverage of the speculation about who might die in a given book, the place to mention it is in the article about that book. If there was/is a concerted objection to the novels because of the number of deaths, then there's an article on objections to the series into which that information can be merged. It should also be pointed out that, at least at the time this opinion is being expressed, all that's in this article is a list of names and causes of death - no coverage of speculation or of objections to the series is present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the deaths are not stated in the plot summaries, and those which are stated in the plot summaries have to be ferreted for through much other text. Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a very useful, organized list. Many of these deaths are not mentioned in other articles. --musicpvm 07:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason. If important deaths are not mentioned in the plot summaries, they should be added. If the deaths aren't important, they're trivia and don't belong on Wikipedia. 17Drew 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, not a policy or even a guideline, so carries no weight whatsoever. Reference to it should be something to avoid in deletion discussions. Golfcam 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With or without the reference to WP:AADD, the fact remains that usefulness is not a factor for inclusion. Plus, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections is a guideline, and having an entire article of trivia is completely unacceptable. 17Drew 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the "guidlines" you linked to are not factors for deletion. The article doesn't even fit the definition of trivia given in WP:ATS, which talks about avoiding "loosely related" trivia sections in articles. It in now way relates to this list. --musicpvm 09:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia is defined as "items of unimportant information". Voldemort's killing an unnamed German-speaking woman, for example, has absolutely no real world importance. 17Drew 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what the guideline you linked to defines "trvia" as, so that guideline does not apply in this case. The example you have given may not be very important, but death and loss are major themes in the Harry Potter series, especially in this final book. Almost every review of Deathly Hallows has stated the importance that death plays in the novel. For anyone wanting to research the major themes of this popular series, this is a very notable list, and not one policy that supports its deletion has been linked to. --musicpvm 22:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd is completely stupid! Instead of this ridiculus afd, someone should simply put the material back where it belongs- on the relevant book pages. If this page is deleted, the info will re created either on this article, or on a differnet one. Why don't we do this now, and get this pathetic Afd out of the way! Dewarw 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is appropriate to break a list out when it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article (says WP:LISTCRUFT). The list at HP7 reached that length. Jheald 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not having thorough coverage of a topic of such widespread interest as Harry Potter would be damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. Golfcam 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason to believe that having an article about minor plot details (with no real world importance) of a fictional series is helping Wikipedia's reputation? 17Drew 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Oh my... I don't see a single valid reason to delete. "Deaths in Harry Potter" are the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. Matthew 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete ALL SUCH LISTS, of which there are a staggering number. For some reason most don't come under scrutiny of the anti-Harry Potter editors. -JNF Tveit 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without reading it (Spoiler alert!!)I would say delete. There will almost certainly be no reliable sources to qualify notability for the entire article, and I believe most of these are from the last book correct? Unless its exceedingly long, it could just be mentions on the various book articles, and a possibly long list on the DH page. It would still be a bit crufty even then; since important deaths would be in the plot summary. The only thing that might keep it as a list is for ease of viewing. But still delete or merge. I ^{(said) (did)} 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For same reasons as already presented. Auror 20:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a separate page. If we put it back to being a section of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, likeliest someone will delete it, and someone will restore it, repeated indefinitely, coming and going like owls in the Hogwarts owlery. Anthony Appleyard 05:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rework A single list of all of the deaths is a very useful tool and should be kept. I only suggest that instead of using a list it gets changed to a table format as seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, because I believe it to be easier to comprehend and more organized. And then all of the other separate articles can be deleted.Csloomis 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Better to have the list broken up into the articles on the different books, if anywhere. - 52 Pickup 12:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have changed Deaths in Harry Potter from a list into 7 tables (one per book). If you do not like it, revert it to [1]. Anthony Appleyard 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcrust/fancruft. Having it in fancy tables doesn't make it any less of a list. --Guess Who 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Chronology of the Harry Potter series#Deaths, they are all there already anyway.... Gran² 10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have to say that is one of the most pertinent and sensible comments I have seen here. I wholeheartedly second that and also suggest

Merge to Chronology of the Harry Potter series, which does indeed already provide a home for exactly this information. Sandpiper 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is very useful for quick reference without having to siphon through the book series.
Merge into List of characters in the Harry Potter books, which can be argued to be "useful" information and an adequate table of contents for characters in the series. Olin 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chronology of the Harry Potter series#Deaths, thanks for the tip, Gran. Claudia 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is not encyclopedia material, original research, unsourced (outside the fiction itself) and, ultimately, not notable. — Coren ^(talk) 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information with no real-world impact, and take it to a Harry Potter Wiki if you want. There's no sense in having "List of [event] in Harry Potter". Some of the entries are just bad: "12 Muggles" in the third book. The last book's deaths were notable because everyone was wondering who dies- we can mention that people were wondering who would die and talked about who did die. We don't need an article documenting every death in the series.-Wafulz 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.