Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional universe 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional universe of Harry Potter[edit]

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

This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a good omnibus article and good to keep around to keep the book articles from drowning under too much detail. Artw (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does that negate the fact that it is essentially a detailed fan site recap of every detail of the Harry Potter Universe? There is no reason for articles like this outside of actual Harry Potter wikis. Yours is a practical concern, perhaps, but that does not act as a logical reason to keep unwanted content. Harry Potter is a book series, and there is no need for several articles detailing every detail of it, as though it actually happened. There is no reason anyone would go to wikipedia to see what types of magical candies were featured in Harry Potter- they would go to the harry potter wiki, where this all belongs. There is a reason there are wikis for other topics-- because it doesn't belong on wikipedia! Artw Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia frequently covers aspects of fictional universes. Policy-wise what would your specific reason for deletion be? Artw (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Aspects" being the key word. WP:Plot WP:NOT#FANSITE. Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡
Without an actual policy based deletion rationale I'm not really seeing much point to continuing this. Artw (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I stated WP:Plot. Which falls under Deletion criteria 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Which, several massive articles directly reading off plot summaries would fall under.Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not appear to match your description of it. I'd say it falls well within WP:PLOT, discussing fictional elements in an enclopedic manner in the context of the real world books, and that it also conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation. Artw (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have removed the notices you added, since the problems they describe are not in evidence. Artw (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the HP universe being notable in its own right, articles like this are excellent places to merge other content that may be notable, but would be better covered in such an article. Nominator makes no argument that couldn't be solved via regular editing: WP:NOTCLEANUP. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is far too long to 'regularly edit'. Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all the other Potter-elements articles currently at AfD, per Jclemens and Artw, and per the 2010 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter that closed with an overwhelming consensus to keep these articles. That old AfD contained thorough explanations of why the articles were appropriate. They still are. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was also 7 years ago.. and stating that something was kept x years ago or even x months ago is not a reason to continue keeping it. The status quo is not always correct. But whatever, I'm outnumbered. I guess these overwhelmingly unnecessary articles will continue to exist. Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 04:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other arguments, additionally - the article is not "too long to 'regularly edit'" and a glance at the editing history shows that this is clearly not the case. I note that you've nominated several of the HP articles for deletion, all using the same copy & pasted rationale, which seems a bit like an "I don't like it" argument to me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that this can be reworked from a real world perspective. I wouldn't say that it would be impossible, but it needs more than the current keep arguments which are basically "it's useful". There is no inherent need for an article like this. People just think there is because that's how they have been used. This information can easily be managed by either culling it down to the point where it can fit in the main article or removing that which is not necessary to understand the series. Some people seem to think that Wikipedia must cover every minute facet of a series, when this article could probably be TNT'd without losing anything of importance. This is not Wikia. TTN (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provides useful coverage of the universe which does not belong in specific book articles, or would have to be repeated in more than one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The nomination here and for the related AfD's is an odd combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing that editing the article is somehow too hard. The edit history easily disproves the latter and the former is not a reason for nominating. In the absence of a good nomination, the article should be kept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In an article weighing at some 70kb, there are about 30 citations. Most of them are primary. Would someone like to evidence that the fictional universe is notable and that this list is appropriately weighted toward information established in reliable sources? Typically our articles on fictional content require just a few things: 1. Detailed creation and development information. 2. Themes present in the work. 3. Reception, critical (or not) of the work.. Where are these things? For a topic such as this particular one, I would expect all of these things to be present. Where is it? Flat out, this should be either a straight Delete or at the very least, a severe trimming. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I believe this article can be re-written and will become more useful as the Fantastic Beasts series starts to unfold, and with more content being available on Pottermore. We will have a common universe which expands outside of the Harry Potter novels, into movies and internet content and therefore does not wholly sit within the world of novels. MY SUGGESTION - would be to retitle this as JK Rowling's Wizarding World which is currently used only as a redirection page. This would provide a more correct title under which to start adding further Fantastic Beasts and Pottermore references-- Emmnich (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- how many Harry Potter plot summary articles do we really need? It's all the same stuff repackaged in 100 different ways and smeared all over dozens of different articles. Reyk _YO! 14:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some room for some mergers and reorganization. A mass AfD is not the way to do that though. Artw (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2017 (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.