Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm

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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patronus Charm[edit]

This article is written in an almost completely in-universe style, and, so far as I can see, it does not warrant an article and should be integrated into Spells in Harry Potter. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside of the Harry Potter universe. Lankiveil (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Spells in Harry Potter per nom. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we are going to delete an article for being too "in-universe", then half of the Harry Potter articles should be up for deletion, I would think. Not to mention other spheres of interest. I would normally agree with the merge option, but the Patronus Charm is explored much more than any other spell in Harry Potter, and there is more information to cover. Is the article of United States House Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management (which I wrote) notable outside of the House of Representatives universe? Quite possibly it's not. But it still deserves to be there. Nevermore27 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment blatantly disregards policies such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, when you refer to other Harry Potter book-related information not being nominated for deletion. I think they all should be deleted; I might soon nominate all such scourge, such fan-cruft. Your comment regarding the House of reps "universe" is a bogus twisting of words, and I think that is readily apparent to you and anyone else who reads that piece of text. So far as there being more to be said on the Patronus Charm, and it being explored much more - this is true of many of the spells seen cataloged at the Spells in Harry Potter article, yet they all conform to inclusion in that list without having their own article. Signed, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy. PeaceNT (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh,yes, of course, I used the word losely there, referring to the fact that the ideas in that essay are indeed commonly accepted, at least in some part. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found three references in books before tiring:

A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World by Fionna Boyle - Page 178
Looking for God In Harry Potter by John Granger - Page 141
Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter by Galadriel Waters - Page 181

Also, the style in which an article is written is not a valid reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References aren't really the problem here. It's the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion as a sep. article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article to which you want to merge this is already too large, being 85K, and so should be broken into smaller articles per WP:SIZE. Smaller, separate articles such as this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIZE is just a guideline. We have hundreds of lists that size and more; if you wish I can find you examples. No, that would just be doing something for the sake of it. Common sense should always be applied, and fracturing a topic because the full content is very large so far as the amount of text it takes to convey the full information makes no sense. Creating articles on subjects that do not merit articles is an extremely poor way of fixing a problem in any instance. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't complain about WP:SIZE just being a guideline when you try to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is also just a guideline. Both have shown equal histories of being supported and are equally valid. In fact, you even complain about the use of WP:SIZE by "violating" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Spells in Harry Potter, which appears to handle the job quite nicely. Yng varr 10:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above Will ^(talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the requirements for existing as separate article is that it's notable; that Colonel Warden has shown. It is possibly the most notable spell in Harry Potter, and should not be merged into an article that's already 85K. SIZE is just a guideline, but I fail to see the value in merging against that guideline.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The value is that we are talking about a minor figment in a work of fiction, a figment that should be included in a list of similar figments, but which is not. We are not merging against policy here, but rather because of policies, such as those cited in the notability policy pages. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A minor figment? We're talking about a major feature of the most major book series of the 21st century and a major movie series. Things don't have to be real to be notable. If you do have a policy that the existence of this article violates, it would be nice to explicitly mention it. We have the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:N demands.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is, when the whole work of fiction is summed up, a minor figment. By policies such as WP:NOTE, it has become common practice to clump this sort of information into relevent common articles, so that information not warranting a sep article can be not omitted. Minor Harry Potter characters, Deatheater, Relatives of Harry Potter are all examples. Now we have Spells in Harry Potter. Several of the spells in there are readily known among Potter fans. Take Wingardium Laviosa. Say that aloud, and I'd say at least 1 in 15 would know it was a spell from Harry Potter. Does it have an article? No. It has conformed with the practice of binding relevent content, just as this article should. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The primary demand of WP:NOTE is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have that. The Patronus Charm is different from Wingardium Laviosa in that it was a major part of three of the books, with visual side-effects that provide insight into the characters. Having this article does not affect Spells in Harry Potter; it becomes one of many articles that have a section split out into its own article.--Prosfilaes(talk) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm probably one of the few people in the world who just does not care two whits for Harry Potter. In this issue, if I were ever to feel like looking up spells for Harry Potter, I'd probably type a search terms to the effect of "harry potter spells". A single clearing-house of information is of more use for non-concerned individuals. The article right now is mainly for those who already know, but that is not what the whole point of an encyclopedia is, is it? Yng varr 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If I was looking for cities in Germany, I'd search for cities in Germany. It doesn't mean we should merge all those articles into List of cities in Germany. Spells in Harry Potter will have links to all appropriate subarticles, so there's nothing lost by keeping this a separate article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Prosfilaes, I understand your point of view. It is clear to me that we simply differ on this matter. I just see it as being more useful to the content if it were merged into the spells article. Policies aside, and thinking of what would best benefit the encyclopedia through application of common sense. All that needs to be said can be summed up in a short spiel in the spells article; I think we can all agree the current article is terribly verbose. That way, all spells in Harry Potter are all in one lump, and no information is lost. When thinking in terms of what wuld actually benefit the reader, does this not sound reasonable? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And, just to say, I agree entirely that non-real things can be highly noteworthy. We have whole series of article relating to Harry Potter to show that. I just think we might be going overboard in some ways. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your own arguments work in favor of keep. You use Death Eater as an example, but we can see both that it is lengthy and should be broken up and that particularly notable Death Eaters (Draco, Snape) have main pages with a stub on Death Eater and that Relatives of Harry Potter is way too long. It makes sense to have Patronus Charm on a separate page and then have a stub on Spells in Harry Potter -- Masterzora (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No it doesn't! My arguments work in favour of common sense, which in turn equals merging an article about a spell in Harry Potter with the list of spells in Harry Potter article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If it were common sense, it would be possible to generalize: that is, we should merge an article about a city in Germany to the list of cities in Germany. Likewise, we can have a List of Christmas films that has some films unlinked (that aren't notable enough to have an article themselves) but has many films having articles of their own. Hence this is purely a judgment call, one which WP:SIZE says should go to having a separate article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:N is not policy either, by the way. --Goobergunch|? 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequately sourced. This is a notable concept, mentioned on author's website and in various interviews, would not be sufficiently explained in the already-long-list of Spells in Harry Potter; also per WP:SIZE, as noted above by Prosfilaes above. This article is a sensible way to organize the materials, and it has chance to be improved. WP:FICT is a guideline, not a policy, and if anyone just take a look at its talk page and archives, this guideline appears to be disputed all year round anyway. PeaceNT (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into spells in Harry Potter. If there's a way to transwiki it over to the HPWiki, that should be done. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This spell is a major plot element in the third book, it is a notable concept. ViperSnake151 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Spells in Harry Potter. Not notable as an encyclopaedia item, except in a study book in Hogwarts. Dekisugi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patronus has shown notability outside of the series via reliable secondary sources and the current article has information beyond the scope of Spells in Harry Potter. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE. Article satisfies WP:V, which actually is policy. --Goobergunch|? 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect there is no notability in this article, and it lacks of sources. Merge into Spells. Lord Opeth (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per User:Dekisugi - fchd (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable, sufficient number of reliable sources. Rt. 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is very true. It is well sourced. If you would, however, review the reaosn it is nominated, it should be merged, pretty much regardless of its well-sourcing. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Hmph. Considering the arguments for both merging and keeping here—I retain my keep decision, per: the size of the general page, notability and the article has potential beyond its current status as per what Masterzora explains. Hope this clarifies my positioning, Rt. 13:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thank you for clarification. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Does not conform to requirements for notability and referencing and must establish some or be deleted. Arguments to keep the article should be ignored unless someone promises they know about some actual referencing that exists and not continually saying "It's notable". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody above listed 3 references that they found in a quick search, so I believe your condition is satisfied. Further, since AfD is not cleanup, the article really shouldn't be deleted on grounds of "lack of references" until proper notice and time have been given for rectifying that. -- Masterzora (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable due to lack of significant coverage by secondary sources - I do not think the sources required to establish notability exist to be found. Information within the article can be covered adequately in Spells in Harry Potter. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep - The style can be changed, the article it would be merged to is too long, and of all the concepts of the Harry Potter Universe, the author spends a significant amount of time detailing it, and there are plenty of sources. There are plenty of Star Wars/Trek and other series with far more trivial concepts. -- Legendary (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup, adequately referenced by things mentioned here and works better separate. I'd like to encourage the nominator to ask people about objectionable articles and try to do some personal work on them before nominating for deletion. AfD'ing is a fairly extreme step and the best result is often found by less extreme means; not looking for those before concluding that there are none is just plain inconsiderate, which is not a minor thing on a website not only based on but vitally dependent on communication and cooperation. --Kiz o r 23:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Spells in Harry Potter. It doesn't need to be DELETED, it exists. This is an encyclopedia. :< 68.62.50.9 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too big to merge, and has entered common parlance. Has external refs too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references present are either from fansites (not reliable), the author (not independent of the topic) or do not mention the topic in question at all (only related through synthesis). [[Guest9999 (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment And what about the references Colonel Warden found? AfD is not about deleting working articles that aren't well enough sourced; if there's a passable article, and the subject is notable, then it stays, even if cleanup is needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since many people are disobeying WP:WAX, maybe I should too. (For the record, this is sarcasm) Let's see, a far more notable spell, Avada Kedavra (redirect to a section of a more general subject), doesn't have it's own article, thus this shouldn't. In fact, all three Unforgivable Curses have only one collective article. The more used and more well known Expelliarmus doesn't have its own article. As for the complaints about size, I guess I'll violate WP:WAX again by citing List of England international footballers (alphabetical), which is just one of the many articles several times larger than the spell list mentioned. The size argument can also be refuted with the argument that WP:WAX is not a policy, by citing that WP:SIZE is not a policy either:

“

However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

”

The prose, tone and style (or lack of it) are mostly irrelevant in this case. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in the case of the Unforgivable Curses and the Disarming Charm, they each do not have their own article because they have a singular effect. The Killing Curse kills, the Criciatus curse tortures, etc. The Patronus Charm has varied effects, and have a far more facets of their use than any other spell you listed. I reiterate: Keep. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does the Patronus deserve an article? Do we really need to list every character's Patronus? Do we need to list every character killed by the Avada Kedavra curse in the books and each death's significance? Do we really need to explain the special role of the disarming spell in the books in a separate article? THe Patronus has two purposes; more than any other spell, I admit. However, one of them (the messengers) is extremely small and can be condensed into one sentence. More than half of the rest of the article can be cropped off as useless information. I reiterate: Delete Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. It is a referenced article from a notable series. Happy New Year! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm a bit confused having now read the essay; the main reason given for not deleting things is that the time taken up by deletion debates and discussion could be better used. However now that a deletion debate has opened for this article surely the best way to try and make sure less time and effort is expended in deletion debates would be for it to be deleted so that it couldn't be nominated again? Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

The article is clearly verified, I don't think anyone disputes this fact. However, verification does not always give notability; just verification. In this instance, there are no sources that indicate that this specific aspect of the Harry Potter universe has independant notability. It has does have significant coverage, but those sources are not independant of the subject. Fansites and author interviews are not independant, and thus they do not grant notability. Because the subject does not have independant notability, it should not have its own article. I believe that this article should be redirected to an anchor title in the List of Spells page, and move the sources too. I (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find annoying that no one will address the cites that Colonel Warden brings up. Furthermore, fansites are of course independent; how is a fansite any less independent than a published critic?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are (generally) independent, however they are not reliable as reqired by the primary notability guideline (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject) - one reason for this is that they do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Anyone can start a fansite and put up any kind of information they want, true or otherwise. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Of course fansites are less independent and reliable; in general fan sites are pretty much inherently POV: a group of people who are fanatics about the subject matter. Hardly neutral. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, fansites are not considered reliable, but they're not less independent. Of course putting up a webpage shows so much more fanaticism than spending ten years of your life getting a Ph.D. on a subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that relate to anything? And no, it doesn't - people get a PhD so they can have a well-paying occupation; what is in it for the people who spend hours furnishing their fansites? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It relates to your dismissal of people as fanatics. And few if any people get PhDs so they can have a well-paying occupation; people who want money get MBAs. People who get a PhD in modern literature become professors, people who spent more time in school than 99% of the populace, to become better paid than 87% of them (according to our article). I've read academic works on Alexander Pope that failed to understand why anyone might have had a legitimate beef with him, a fanatic position if I ever heard of one. As people who spend hours furnishing their fansite, how is that any different from spending hours on any other hobby?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the argument is void now anyway considering you just admitted that it was irrelevent except in regards to my supposed "dismissal". And I'm not dismissing people as fans. I am telling you that they are. Are you trying to assert that people who run a fansite are not fans of the subject matter? No, you couldn't be - that doesn't make sense, much like some of your other arguments at this AFD. I care not to bicker any longer. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between fans and fanatics, no matter what the origins of the word may be. Your confusion there is offensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although referencing is poor (each is either not independent or not reputable (bloggy)), and this needs to be fixed. Rewrite as per WP:WAF. I expect that coverage of the subject in independent reputable sources will exist, but if you can't be wait for them, merge into Spells in Harry Potter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage from reliable secondary sources is necessary to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google news search which generates very vaguely related results can hardly be counted as "significant media coverage". Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no idea but I'd not call those "very vaguely related". The term is used in the articles in a meaningful way. And we are talking ABC, Time, etc. Is that enough? Eh, I just edit here. 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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.