Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter (series)

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 merge to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#G. Norman Lippert. All actions have been suggested but it is clear that consensus is against a standalone page. The best fit with the various comments is 'Merge to legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#G. Norman Lippert'. There is sourced material so a merge is practical. Just Chilling (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter (series)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

One of hundreds of fan fiction sequels to Harry Potter. Nothing to make this one particularly notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 11:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 11:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 11:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This if far some regular fanfiction, this series is quite well known among fans and has recived a lot of media attention, including being discussed in several books.★Trekker (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ¶ I assume the argument for deletion is a failing of Wikipedia:Notability; if I'm incorrect, please let me know. The five sources are: a press release at Cision, news.com.au, Publishers Weekly, HPANA, and The Scotsman; three of those are optimal. Unless the article can meet the Heymann Standard, it should be merged to either Harry Potter fandom#Fan fiction or legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#G. Norman Lippert, both of which discuss the series (the latter of which is the target of James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing). — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR news wire is not a reliable source of indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough but if wanted to add some content to the character's page MaskedSinger (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would first establish the notability of the author or the books. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#G. Norman Lippert. RS coverage is mostly about that event. Bondegezou (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#G. Norman Lippert. As mentioned, the sources are largely about the real world legal aspects of the series. Since pretty much all of the information and sources being used in this article are already present in the suggested redirect target, merger is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, redirect rather than merge fine. Bondegezou (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#G. Norman Lippert, the article is not notable itself. Alex-h (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to legal disputes over the Harry Potter series#G. Norman Lippert per above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2019 (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.