Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling

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 as a POV fork/original synthesis. --Core desat 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article was created by Libertycookies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after extensive discussions at J. K. Rowling, in which most of the content is already there and other content was deleted on the basis of violation of WP:OR. The article was previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_and_influences_of_J.K._Rowling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork and merge any useful content to J. K. Rowling as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Jossi. Utterly obvious WP:OR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on this article is well cited and from legitimate sources. user: Jossi is advocating for the deletion of this material for unknown personal reasons. user:Jossi originally claimed this was a POV fork, apparantly on the mistaken belief that it is meant to confuse people with the biography J. K. Rowling. A main article link has been added to redirect any people searching for the more general biography. This article is merely a longer article on Rowling's influence and activism than would be appropriate in the main biography. user:Jossi has also engaged in an intimidation campaign to suppress information on Rowling's liberal views and activism suggesting that this may be politically motivated. The content user: Jossi claims as WP:OR is well documented and from legitimate sources indicating that his OR claim has no basis in fact. An indication of user:Jossi's bias is shown in his attempt to compare Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling with the new article Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling which has no WP:OR and is NPOV, and has been well received by unbiased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertycookies (talk • contribs)

Retain article as it is a more concise summary of all of J. K. Rowling's well documented political activities and moral writings. As everything is well sourced, there is no damage by keeping the information available for other editors to build upon., Add link in main article to Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling, Remind User:Jossi of his responsibilities as an admin to remain unbiased. Libertycookies 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and redirect then protect POV fork, OR, major WP:OWN issues. It's a personal blog post on Wikimedia servers. Lurker 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename to Influence of, activism is not releavnt as a title, SqueakBox 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Libertycookies appears to be indulging in canvassing. I thought people should know Lurker 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be quite an understatement. Libertycookies has canvassed all over the place: KnowledgeOfSelf, Jreferee, Andysoh, Bigdaddy1981, SqueakBox, Tony1, Etcetc, yet another blatant violation of the rules. Aula ^TPN 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that seems a little out of the time sequence. But to clarify it is roughly the same amount of Canvassing by Seren back when he rallied folks originally. No telling if he ever got email working to be more covert in canvassing. Aula, you seem to have a personal vendetta. Get over it and just discuss the content. Libertycookies 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, hence my being here, SqueakBox 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Lurker, just to clarify, I learned the technique from user:Serendipodous who recruited user:Jossi and other commenters to rally against my content based on their definition of OR and POV. Doesn't look like the process is frowned upon, just controversial, but I think we should have a fair debate. You okay with that, or should only the negative position be allowed to canvass?Libertycookies 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with people asking admins for help, which is what Serendipodous actually did Lurker 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are okay with 1 of the solicits, but you don't like the majority of his calls for backup. Libertycookies 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What calls for backup? The only one engaging in WP:CANVASS is you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Serendipodous merely asked for support in policing the unsourced edits you were making to the main article in order to keep it compliant with WP:BLP Aula ^TPN 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only clarifying the slander. Anytime you wish to stop spinning the prior actions it would be appreciated. Libertycookies 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, the calls for backup are the ones that AulaTPN is attempting to defend. I think he contacted you as well because he found you to be sympathetic to his views. Check your talk page if you don't remember. Libertycookies 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertycookies, it might not be a bad idea to take a step back and breathe. Your comments are unconstructive and are borderline personal attacks. Wikipedia functions on consensus, not on intimidation or grandstanding. There is no need for rhetoric or soapboxing on either side, the system will work as it's supposed to. Trusilver 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt this time. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for JK Rowling to spout off her numerous political opinions. And by the way Libertycookies, the only person I see that is being deliberately POV is you. Trusilver 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jossi appears to be trying to keep impartial comments on the deletion of this article by deleting links to the article from the main page. Makes the whole POV Fork seem less credible. Libertycookies 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it this time as you can well see. I did so because it violates so many policies and has no place being associated with article. Again, try not to make ad hominem attacks and also try not to assume you can read the motives behind other people's actions. Aula ^TPN 18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete & Protect. This is Libertycookies (talk · contribs) second attempt to circumvent consensus. Last time resulted in a blatant circumvention of AfD as the user merged the content into the main J. K. Rowling article, hence my vote for protection. Material is almost entirely OR, violates WP:BLP and is a blatant attempt at quote-mining and POV pushing. Aula ^TPN 18:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, looking at this user's contribs, the account seems to be virtually a single purpose account, only making edits which relate to the supposed political & social influences of J. K. Rowling as per the user's research. Aula ^TPN 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No doubt about it in my mind, this is clearly OR. Blueboar 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Clear attempt at circumventing previous article deletion and consensus to remove similar content on J.K. Rowling. Also violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete & protect -- reposting of previously deleted content, violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. If this article is deleted, as it should be, Libertycookies needs to be sternly warned to adhere to our content policies and to stop POV-forking. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Jossi. Other well-known artists support many causes, and their activist activities are included in their main bios. I see no reason this case should be different. The most notable examples should be merged into the Rowling bio. -Jmh123 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The unencyclopedic part is the WOMBAT tests; the remained is sourced. I see no BLP issues--it describes where she stands on public issues basedon her own public statements. DGG 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOMBAT removed and added to talk. There are other sources and quotes that describe her politics in the books which would be less contentious. Libertycookies 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content that is well sourced is already incorporated at J. K. Rowling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for all the reasons the previous version of this article was deleted. This is an attempt to fork off material from the main page because it has been rejected there. Unacceptable. --Haemo 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a little of what is in this section into J.K. Rowling and delete the rest. The first half of the article is not encyclopaedic (nor relevant to the title). Some of the second half is over-detailed: not everything done by a notable person becomes noteworthy. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 06:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Main article already covers this topic well, no need for a POV fork. CWC 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Christianity" section has been merged with Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series and the "Human rights and civil rights" section has been merged with Works analogous to Harry Potter. Apart from that, the only section in this article that isn't in the main article (aside from the WOMBATs, which everyone seems to agree should be deleted) is "Maggie's Centres for cancer patients", and that could be merged with "Other donations" or given its own subsection in Charities. Serendipodous 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Serendipodous and Jossi point out, little if any of this material is OR. The article merely consolidates related material that is spread out on several differant articles and sections to allow the reader to make cohesive sense of the topic. It is my intention to go into greater detail, with approved quotes and hopefully other editor contributions, than would be appropriate in the main article, which should be a more cursory look at her influence.

Rowling's influence as a writer is significantly greater than other writers due to her widespread popularity, which is why the significance of the books should be acknowledged.Libertycookies 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But virtually all this info is already in various articles so why is this article necessary? Serendipodous 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An equally valid question is why is it necessary to delete it and keep the information scattered and diffuse? Being in favor of making things easy for the reader who is interested in Rowling's influence and activism, I think it should be consolidated.

Also since the material is sometimes contentious, I think the talk should be moved from the main J. K. Rowling site to an article dedicated to the subject. Stamp the whole article as in dispute if you must, but why is it necessary to limit discussion and snuff it out immediately? Libertycookies 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. It's an encyclopedia. One person's take on JK Rowling's career (yours) isn't a valid topic for an article. You could write it in a magazine, or a blog, or a news piece, or an editorial, but not here.

Plus you make a number of odd and flat out contradictory claims. Your line "There is a lot of politics in Harry Potter" is sourced by Rowling saying "There is a certain amount of political stuff in there. But I also feel that every reader will bring his own agenda to the book. People who send their children to boarding schools seem to feel that I'm on their side. I'm not. Practicing wiccans think I'm also a witch. I'm not." In other words, there is very little overt politics in the books, and people will read their own politics into her work. Which, by the way, appears to be exactly what you have done. Serendipodous 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with some editorial Comments: If any encyclopedic material remains in the POV-Fork that does not appear in the Main J.K. Rowling article, then merge that information back in. The original consensus back at the J.K. Rowling talk page called for LibertyCookies to produce a simple paragraph or two of some basic sourced material regarding Rowling's notable and documented political leanings. That permissive mandated that any such material must NOT contain any sort of POV, Original Research, point-making or, in particular, Argument Synthesis. But the material inevitably consisted of mostly synthesis and point-making, eg: Rowling is or was in some way associated with a Person or other Entity, or read their work, or contributed to it, or wrote about it, (etc.), and such Person or Entity is a known or suspected to be associated with some political affiliation "X" or "Y" , therefore (implicitely) Rowling is also "X" and "Y". It may well be that Rowling is a Socialist/Communist/Marxist/Fascist/Leftist/Laborist/Environmentalist/Satanist/Whatever, and if so and it can be sourced, then state that and be done with it. One paragraph and done. There is absolutely no cause for producing a laundry list of indirect tie-ins between Rowling and her alleged political leanings or sympathies, via her associations. Find a reliable source that quotes Rowling as saying "Yes I am a Socialist and contribute to the Green Party" or whatever, and then leave it. Done. Keep it simple and it will be accepted as encyclopedic. Dragging it out with 12 paragraphs of possible links between Rowling and "X" and "Y" and therefore Rowling = "XY" is unacceptable. And attempting to use her tongue-in-cheek "in-(HP)-universe" WOMBAT quiz, which she posted for amusement on her web site, as "evidence" of her political leanings, is really just sad. It is the sort of thing that is leading the nearly-snow drive to stamp this thing out once and for all. That said, I believe there is room for a paragraph or two in Rowling's article about her documented politics and beliefs. There is no need for an article which constituted a POV Fork. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, claiming to understand why Rowling posted the WOMBAT test is your POV. The test merely showed that the books have political content in them, and the article did not attempt to analyze what, if any, real world analogies exist. The article didn't claim any tie ins with any of her charities or activities to her politics, and if any Right wing associations exist they should certainly be added. Libertycookies 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I would agree that we can post a simple list (in the Main J.K. Rowling article), carefully avoiding any POV commentary and OR synthesis about her possible motivations, of the Causes that Rowling specifically mentions support for on her web site or elsewhere. This list could include: Thinness ("For Girls Only"), One-parent families, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Scotland, Amnesty International, Cage Beds, Missing Madeline McCann, Children's Voice campaign, even bullied children and perhaps Thin Girls and Fat Boys if you want to go there. I'm sure there are additional published reliable sources for other causes she has advocated, which can then be added to the list. When compeleted, I think a bullet-pointed list, without editorial comment, of the 10 or 12 causes she has expressed support for would be sufficient to cover that. The second paragraph can be a quote or two where Rowling clearly expresses her political leanings and religious beliefs as expressed in her interviews or elsewhere. That should be sufficient for documenting her activism and personal politics, in my view. You have to understand this problem was kicked off with previous commentary that expressed or implied things like "Rowling supports Anarchy in her books and elsewhere", based on: 1) the OOtP movie poster says "The Revolution Begins", and 2) the Hogwarts Students took matters into their own hands in terms of DADA training (etc.) when Dumbledore's "benevolent dictatorship" as Headmaster is circumvented and replaced by Umbridge's "non-benevolant and fascist dictatorship" or whatever. Everything since has descended and snowballed from that sort of nonsense. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, and I agree that my prior article was way over the top and warranted deletion. I realize that there is a certain amount of prejudice against my contributions because of my prior mistakes. I am hopeful that more people will get over the ad hominem attacks and debate the current material not the contributor. Libertycookies 12:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concede majority rules, delete it. I'll add the content that is unique to the main article. Thanks to the few people who noted the content wasn't all OR and was well sourced. Wag of the finger at those who engaged in ad hominem attacks and apologies for following suit. Libertycookies 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wag of the finger...? Normally I don't go in for troll-feeding but you're the one making personal attacks and the fact that you can still make such comments and make claims such as in your response to T-dot just shows how little you understand/care about what wikipedia is about and what the editing community are trying to do. Other editors and I have given you links to all the relevant policies countless times but I'm starting to seriously doubt whether you've even bothered to read any of them? Aula ^TPN 23:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:OR, plus for WP:N, Rowling's political opinions not in themselves being notable for an article. — BillC ^talk 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, from the Telegraph review of the new Order of the Phoenix movie: "It is hard not to look for hidden meanings as the fight turns political. Harry knows Voldemort is back, but the Minister of Magic blindly insists that he isn't. Subservient media obediently echo ministerial spin against Harry."[1] Libertycookies 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean this stuff desrves its own article, though Lurker 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted. Uninteresting and unnecessary articles should be allowed to die from neglect and lack of interest, not by abortion. Libertycookies 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, things just don't work that way when WP:BLP is involved. Aula ^TPN 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. ArchStanton 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork--Sefringle^Talk 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by an amused reader: there's section on how she successfully pressed government of the Czech Republic against caged beds in mental institutions. While this is true it is only half of truth: the decision was widely ridiculed in the country (like whether some child book writer is our new ruler), the minister who made it soon lost his place, the decision itself was partly reverted, president of the country sent R. complaning letter, few months ago R., visiting the Czech Rep., apologised for the pressure. The complete story feels like a comedy by someone very talented, the current short section is painting only one-side of it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 1 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.