Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places 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 keep: the argument put out there was "is this notable" and hence "should this be in our encyclopedia", to which the consensus was "yes, it is" and "yes, it should". Daniel 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Harry Potter

The article is an in universe list of Harry Potter locations, bereft of any out of universe information, so its just a regurgitation of plot information from the Harry Potter books, and since we already have articles for those, this is just duplicative and should be deleted and redirected to Universe of Harry Potter, which can treat this same subject in a much more encyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. Many of these survived AfDs by themselves, not that they're merged into one more concise article they should be deleted? faithless (^speak) 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't see any problem with this page, either. so keep (and perhaps cleanup to remove the repeated, redundant introductions that XYZ is a fictional place - from articles merged into the list). - Mike Rosoft 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of you address my contention, which is that there is insufficient notability. Do you think it does? And what would be the proof of that? Judgesurreal777 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you feel it is not notable, Judge? This is precisely the sort of article that people would want to find if they come across an unusual place name in the books (Lord knows I did). Individually, the entries probably aren't super-noteworthy. Could it use clean-up? Hell yeah. But as a collected grouping of places in the Harry Potter series, it is notable.

Strong Keep - its has a few cruft and arrangement problems, but that doesn't damage its notability. Wikipedia, the Harry Potter wikiproject and Harry-Potter main articles are better off for being able to link to an article that speaks specifically to these areas without having to reinvent the wheel in each article a place name appears. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely some Harry Potters haters out today. The article can always be revised.--Cartman005 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike Rosoft. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To think this is about hate is to completely miss the point; there are many very good Harry Potter articles, some of which are Featured and Good articles, and this article just sucks. And why does it suck? Because it has no out of universe information, like "how was the harry potter world developed?" "what were Rowlings inspirations?" That kind of information needs to be included, and if it cant, the article fails notability and doesn't deserve its own article. Besides, there is already a Harry Potter universe article, which is much better and covers the SAME STUFF, this article is totally unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Rebuttal - I rather agree that this needn't be (or is even an accurate description of) a fans vs. Everyone Else -type issue. Perhaps you could provide the link the 'Universe of Harry Potter' article, Judge; let us take a look and compare that article with this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put linked it in my comment above; as you will see, it is a broader topic, and will probably be able to intelligently discuss the Harry potter world Rowling created. The location list offers no such promise. Judgesurreal777 06:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. Ridernyc 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Arcayne. Edward321 02:30, 14 November 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.