Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. and not likely to emerge. Merging or not does not require AfD and there's no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing[edit]

I just closed the AfD for this movie as a WP:SNOW...while I was deleting, I found this page...it's a fan fiction novel... Smashville^talk 03:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever's left after a good cleanup to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series since it does appear to have some RS'ing. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have been covered by reliable sources, just the fact that it is fan-fiction is no criterium to delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bury the remains at a crossroads at midnight. Much of the 'notability' for this thing is WP:ONEVENT-type stuff. Possibly, a merge as recommended by Jclemens might work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AlexTiefling. NN fanfic. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Fanfic is essentially non-notable by definition, and the "sources" primarily discuss this as an actual official sequel, which obviously turned out not to be the case... apparently the writer was trying to build up buzz from naiive young fans thinking this was an actual 8th book to be published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the third-party-sourced information to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series and redirect. I only considerded a weak merge at first, but since this fanfic has some ONEVENT-ness surrounding its legal dispute but is still not mentioned in Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series, notability and undue weight is a concern here. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the details of any legal dispute from reliable sources to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. Details of the content of the book and its writer need deleting with extreme prejudice per WP:ONEVENT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my comments during the previous AFD. Unlike the film which was NN, this fanfic has been referenced in major third-party sources and that pushes it past the notability/viability bar. 23skidoo (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/~~Weak~~ Keep. This seems like a notable enough book, at the very least notable enough for the legal disputes article because JK Rowling has at least mentioned this in public. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the reasons I said the first time around. The subject of the article is arguably even more notable now than it was when I originally created the article almost a year ago; Lippert has even started writing a sequel. There has even been some speculation about Warner Bros. possibly even considering adapting the story to continue making money off the Harry Potter name brand after the last film version of Deathly Hallows is released—unlikely that that would ever pan out, but still, within the Harry Potter fan community at least, this is a big deal. I don't know what else I can say to convince people here; I'm just glad the article wasn't deleted the first time around. --Antodav2007 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the remnants into "legal disputes", per Jclemens. "A big deal in the online fan community because of a bogus rumor" doesn't constitute notability. Lippert (or some of his fanbase) seems to be good at getting people to buy into nonsense; we shouldn't be enablers. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 14 October 2008 (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.