Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Harry Potter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A timeline that consists only of plot information, using only the books themselves as sources. As it stands, the majority of the information is just random, non important trivia, and the information that is not is pretty much already covered in sufficiently in articles such as Harry Potter universe and in the plot sections of the various books themselves. Thus, this is a rather unnecessary split from those pages. PROD was declined, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely in-universe, no external sources, no criteria for what's included. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to somewhere else more appropriate. Looks fascinating, but only primarily sourced. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our editing policy. The sourcing is easy to improve as there are entire books written about this stuff such as Harry Potter and History. We already document numerous aspects of the setting in the Harry Potter universe article and some chronology and history seems a sensible addition to this. Warden (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we can check in its Amazon preview, Harry Potter and History only features a timeline as an appendix and is strictly a reproduction of primary content without any comment or analysis from the author. And WP:otherstuffexists still isn't policy or guideline.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable policy here is WP:IMPERFECT as this article has only existed for a day. Complaining about a lack of sources is absurd in such a case as I have immediately produced a substantial book-length source and there plenty more out there such as Muggles, Monsters and Magicians: A Literary Analysis of the Harry Potter Series. Warden (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMPERFECT is not applicable in AfDs in which the issue is one of notability and when discussion doesn't bring proofs of notability, especially when it is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Either enough sources are brought to build a notable article, or they are not and the article is deleted. As I have already said, the first source you cited doesn't provide significant coverage as it is just reproduction of primary content devoid of any analysis. It is absurd to talk about "book length sources" if topic is only covered in one appendix. Your new source is exactly the same, just an annex, the topic of the timeline itself is not covered so that more than "half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" (WP:WHYN) could be written. If you're so intend on proving the topic is notable, then use your sources to build a decent real-world analysis section and we'll see. Until then, just presenting trivia and shouting "it's notable!!!!!!!!!" won't help you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire book is a good source for this topic because it relates the history of the Harry Potter to the history of the real world. Such detailed commentary provides good context and analysis and so ticks all the boxes for our coverage of fiction. The current state of the article does not yet reflect this as it has just been started and so is just a stub. The source demonstrates the good potential of the topic and our editing policy encourages us to develop from an imperfect first draft. The notability of the topic is well established by the multiple substantial sources which detail and comment upon the events and chronology of the setting. Your nay-saying is irrelevant because you have done nothing to find these sources, do not seem to understand them or the relevant policies and just seem to be shouting trivial regardless of the size or quality of the sourcing. Please see WP:IDHT and WP:HONEST. Warden (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're debating about "Timeline of Harry Potter", not "Fictional and real worlds in Harry Potter". The current article is about the fictional events that happen in the fictional world of HP, ordered according to fictional dates, ie a chronological plot dump. I can't see the link between that and the book Harry Potter and history. While the book does provide some kind of commentary on the HP series in general, I can see nothing that could be of any use here, beyond a few unsignificant mentions. "Current state" is not a valid concern since this article existed under a different title for a long time before getting deleted, contributors had all the time to implement coverage, provided it existed, which it apparently did not since the article was deleted, and this discussion has not, so far, documented the appearance of significant coverage on the HP timeline since the last AfD. Again, the sources only contain unsignificant mentions that do not allow to write more than "half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" (WP:WHYN). I don't see "multiple sources", and those you found certainly do not provide "substancial" enough coverage to write more than a few sentences, I see no details nor comments upon a chronological ordering of events in the HP saga that would warrant more plot coverage on WP than there already is at Harry Potter#Plot and the individual novel plots. I've already looked for sources before, and did it again now, only to come to the conclusion that all we could find would be too unsubstancial to warrant a stand-alone article for the HP timeline. I understand the sources perfectly, and it is precisely their size and their content (again, I only consider what pertains to the article currently discussed) which makes me say they do not allow us to write more than a few words on the subject and thus don't meet WP:GNG. To be clear, even if the topic was named "Timeline in HP", all we could write with the sources are these 2 sentences: "Apparently some occasional events in HP happen on the same date as real world events. And JKR messed up her chronology". You could probably stretch that into a 3 or 4 lines paragraph by padding it with examples, but it wouldn't go further than that, which means coverage is not significant enough for the article to stand on its own, and would probably better fit somewhere in Harry_Potter#Reception or Harry_Potter#Themes. And would you care to tell me which policies I would not understand ? As to your last sentence, you are politely but firmly reminded to remain civil and always treat others with consideration and respect.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how reliable these sources are, really. If you are using them to support the fictional timeline as it exists now, it does not solve the problems of WP:NOTPLOT, nor does it not address the fact that all of this information is already covered elsewhere, in much more logical articles, such as Quidditch, Harry_Potter#Plot, etc. Creating an article that just regurgitates plot information that already exists in proper places on Wikipedia is completely unnecessary. Both of those concerns were clearly stated in my initial nomination, and bringing up these sources do not address either of these. If you are talking about using these sources to actually talk about the Harry Potter chronology in relation to the real world and actually include real world perspectives on fictional plot elements, then you are talking about a completely different article than what exists now, and the entire thing would essentially have to be rewritten and renamed. In a case like that, deleting the offending article and just starting over from scratch is almost always simpler than insisting on keeping a poorly written article and then completely rewriting the whole thing anyways. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is always easier to keep the existing content and build upon it. Ordinary editing may be used to transform any part of the article and even change the title. Deletion is just destructive and disruptive and does nothing to assist the process of rewriting and improvement. To develop articles in this way is our explicit editing policy, "For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.". What we don't need is disruptive editors trying to derail this natural process of development by immediately leaping on new articles and trying to delete them - see WP:INSPECTOR. Warden (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INSPECTOR is an essay, not a guideline, and there are some of those that one could pull out to make any sort of argument. WP:TNT, for example, namely the sentence "Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over" emphasizing exactly what I just said. But, as neither of those two essays reflect actual Wikipedia policy, bringing either of them up as an argument is largely pointless at this stage. Trying to bring WP:IMPERFECT into this argument is also rather pointless since no one is trying to claim that the article should just be deleted because its poorly written, they're arguing to delete it becase A) it goes against the policies of WP:NOTPLOT and WP:FICT, B) the information present in it is already covered in proper articles making this article an unnecessary split, and C) fixing both of these problems would require the entire article to be completely rewritten from the ground up, which goes far beyond simple improvement. Furthermore, I really do not know why you are suddenly resorting to making snide comments about the editors. Just because other editors are disagreeing with you over the validity of keeping this article or not, that is no reason to accuse them as being disruptive editors, being dishonest, or being too dense to understand policy. That is uncalled for and disappointing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) as recreation of deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series (5th nomination)). If G4 is not met, then Delete because it fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG, there are only primary sources and one unreliable. The source cited above doesn't provide significant enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, and we would need multiple sources anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5th nomination - LOL. That was two years ago and obviously a case of keep nominating until a deletionist admin can be found to cast a supervote. The fact that we have a fresh attempt at this shows that we should address this obvious need in some way rather than desperately trying to suppress it. Whether it's in the main article, the universe article or separate, there's we should outline the chronology of the Harry Potter cycle so that the various novels and movies and other spinoffs can be placed in context and the reader helped to understand their relationship. Warden (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the keep votes didn't bring sources that could establish without doubt the notability of the topic, then it was not a case of supervoting but merely the acknowledgment that AfDs are not votes, and that no matter how many fans like a topic, if it does not fit the guidelines it goes away. If there is an encyclopedic need for a stand-alone article, then there should have encyclopedic content like real-world coverage. I don't see it, and I don't see the sources with which it could be build (again, your sources are completely trivial mentions).Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being nothing else than a plot dump (WP:NOT#PLOT) of trivia, if seen from a real-world perspective as it should be. A proper timeline article would have to look like Harry Potter#Origins and publishing history, and not be a fictional timeline without relevance in the real world. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person also created an article for this information at [1] but it got replaced with a redirect, they then creating the information here. I don't see any harm in having a timeline article for major fictional series, and this serious without a doubt is quite significant, and this does aid in the understanding of such a notable series List_of_Harry_Potter_related_topics. We used to have a lot of timeline articles for notable fictional series, but alas, not many remain. List of timelines in fiction. There was no consensus to delete this the first 4 times, but the 5th time it was decided to delete it. If you want something deleted you can keep trying until you get what you want. Horrible system really. Dream Focus 15:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:AFDFORMAT ("AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies"), can I ask you to more clearly state which policy or guideline you think would allow the inclusion of this topic as a stand-alone article ? This article was brought here because it violates WP:NOTPLOT and is an unnecessary split, yet you don't adress these important issues in your recommendation (thus you don't explain why you "don't see any harm"). You seem to imply that any article can be written on a major fictional series, going directly against the fact that notability is not inherited. Unfortunately, not being of "any harm" or "aiding in the understanding" are not criteria for inclusion as a stand alone article, and you do note that this article is an attempt to circumvent its deletion (under the title "Chronology of Harry Potter") last year.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article simply reorganizes extant plot information from book articles into a new format, constituting an unacceptable synthesis. Other wikis exist for this sort of information, and there's no real-world coverage here that doesn't already exist in the book articles. — chro • man • cer 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTPLOT JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and ordinary community best practice, as evidenced by these AFDs on similar topics:

Extended content

According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. The way that we ordinarily cover the plot of a fictional subject is in an article about the work itself. Occasionally, we might create an article about a fictional series, and have a broader plot summary there (which we do for the Harry Potter series) but it would always be in context with other information about its reception and development. In theory, any part of a fictional work could be developed into an appropriate article provided that information about reception and development exist. But in the case of this timeline, it would literally be reception and development about the story, and would largely duplicate the information at Harry Potter#Reception. That makes this article an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK, in addition to violating our WP:NOT#PLOT policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTPLOT and nom TheStrike Σagle 04:04, 14 August 2012 (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.