| Revision as of 12:19, 1 September 2007 editBkonrad (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators219,152 editsm →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:51, 1 September 2007 edit undoGuest9999 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,831 edits repliesNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :] - the sources mentioned are not about the horcruxes - they are about the hype surrounding the seventh Harry Potter book and mention the horcruxes - the content could be used as a reliable source for information within the article but I do not think they establish the notability of the topic.] 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]] | :] - the sources mentioned are not about the horcruxes - they are about the hype surrounding the seventh Harry Potter book and mention the horcruxes - the content could be used as a reliable source for information within the article but I do not think they establish the notability of the topic.] 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]] | ||
| ::The aforementioned references make it clear that ''horcrux'' is at the core of the final book, thus they assert notability of the subject. Regards, ] 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ::The aforementioned references make it clear that ''horcrux'' is at the core of the final book, thus they assert notability of the subject. Regards, ] 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::*Show me where in ] it says that being an important aspect of the plot of the book asserts notability. ] 14:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]] | |||
| :'''Strong delete''': per nom. Article has no reliable independent sourcing. Notability within a work of fiction does not equal notability in the real life world. ] 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | :'''Strong delete''': per nom. Article has no reliable independent sourcing. Notability within a work of fiction does not equal notability in the real life world. ] 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''Comment''': ''ust because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Misplaced Pages article'' | ::*'''Comment''': ''ust because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Misplaced Pages article'' | ||
| Line 41: | Line 42: | ||
| ::Yes it does, that is what notability is. ] 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ::Yes it does, that is what notability is. ] 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Keep''' Crucial to the plot. ] 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | :'''Keep''' Crucial to the plot. ] 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Reply''' Please see ] and ] articles have to meet the notability criteria in their own right. ] 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]] | |||
| *'''Keep''' central focus of the most-notable book series of the past decade. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' central focus of the most-notable book series of the past decade. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''Reply''' Please see ] and ] - articles have to meet the ntoability criteria in their own right ] 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]] | |||
Revision as of 14:51, 1 September 2007
Horcrux
The article fails to meet the primary notability criteria - there are no independent secondary sources. The sources listed are from the books, the author, a fansite "chat" with the author and another Wiki which does not appear to even mention Harry Potter or Horcruxes. None of these meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources. There is also no real world content as described in WP:FICT. Notability tagging and merge discussions have had no effect on the quality of the article and have not brought to light any reliable secondary sources (as required by WP:NN). Harry Potter and the the Harry Potter Universe are notable - this fictional concept does not appear to be - notability is not inherited. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate colection of information or a guide to the Harry Potter Universe and should not contain this potential fancruft Guest9999 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The article is well written and the subject matter was all anyone could talk about for around a month, that alone lets it slide on WP:NN. WP:RS would be my larger concern. Burzmali 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Misplaced Pages:Notability#Notability is not temporary - "Wikinews, not Misplaced Pages, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage" - however there isn't even evidence that there was news coverage in the article. ]
- I was just thinking that, since I have never read the books, if someone mentioned the concept in conversation (and they have), I would try to find it in wiki. I suppose a merge and redirect to Deathly Hallows would be enough, but the article's quality seems good enough to keep it. Unfortunately, Hocrux seem to fall somewhere between KITT and the Ectomobile in terms of notability. Burzmali 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the seven(?) Horcruxes and the three Deathly Hallows have nothing to do with each other in principle, although by fate one of the Hallows (the black Resurrection Stone) happened to be mounted on the Ring Horcrux... --T-dot ( /contribs ) 02:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This article contains much information, which can be useful for (Harry Potter) readers. I think that as the horcruxes are very complex and hard to understand, people should be able to look them up. The horcruxes are crucial to the plot of the story, and I really think that they should have their own article.Shmooshkums 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Please see WP:USEFUL and WP:NOT#PLOT. Misplaced Pages is an encylopaedia ]
- Reply. WP:USEFUL is not policy, but merely a guideline. Indeed it is helpful, however editors are not bound by it. Useight 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- COMMENT It may be useful and informative, but there's probably a much more appropriate place to put this article, since it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. Isn't there a perfectly good Harry Potter Wiki out there somewhere that we could move this to? OfficeGirl 07:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Good article about notable topic. Why are we wasting time discussing this?. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE - you do not give any evidence for your arguement. ]
- Keep It is a notable topic, and is a well-organized source of information that combines content from more than one book and the author. As noted above by others, it is a complicated concept, and central to the plot in the last 2 novels. The nominator seems to have a penchant for mass Afd noms. A few weeks ago it was LOTR articles, and now HP. V-train 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Please see WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:ITSNOTABLE they may be useful in considering your arguement. ]
- Keep Nominator fails to point out any actual detriment caused by having such an article. It is certainly a notable topic of a very well-known book. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Please see WP:HARMLESS and WP:NOT#INFO. Misplaced Pages is an encylopaedia. ]
- Well, yes of course Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It seems a little condescending of you to trot that out as an argument, as if your opinion of what an encyclopedia is or is not trumps everyone else's. What you seems to be saying is merely that YOU don't think that THIS particular topic is encyclopedic -- or in other words, WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. When the subject clearly has some level of notability, then I suggest that the fact that you have not described any detriment caused by having the article is a fair consideration for discounting the nomination as invalid. Simply because you don't like something is not a reason to delete. You invoke "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information", but that does not mean that anything that you don't like necessarily qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of information. older ≠ wiser 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A well-written article about a major plot device in the one of the most popular series of fiction ever. Unlikelyheroine 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. ]
- DELETE Though it is an interesting and timely subject. It's really just fancruft. And its biggest problem is that it seems to consist primarily of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Fun article. Just doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. But there are other nice places to publish original research like this. Take it to one of those places. This AfD must not be a popularity vote on the Harry Potter books. Goodness knows they're well established as popular. That doesn't make this article appropriate for an encyclopedia which relies primarily on secondary sources.OfficeGirl 05:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- No one is saying that this is a popularity vote, and could you please point out which part of the article is original research, so that it can be fixed? Regards, PeaceNT 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As one of the sole voices for deletion I would like to note the following.
- 1) I do not wish to question how well written the article is as I feel it is irrelevant.
- 2) I agree the subject is an important part of a popular and notable series of books.
- 3) I agree that people seeking information of the subject may find the article useful.
- 4) I agree the information should be freely available on the internet for those who wish to use it.
However none of those things really relate in any way to WP:NN which is (in my opinion) a pretty important guideline. Despite all the keep votes not one reliable secondary source has been suggested in this debate so far. To quote the guideline page: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability.". To sum up Misplaced Pages is an encylopaedia; not everything useful, interesting or popular is meant to be in it.]
- Keep. The fact that Harry potter is notable is exactly what makes this topic notable, because, I also say, this is major plot of the series, especially of Book 7. It's a mistaken view to claim there's no third party coverage. See this entry (from the The Seattle Times) or this (from The Washington Post) Please also feel free to do some Google search to check out the results. Horcrux is what Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is all about, thus it's unjustified to say that it is non notable. PeaceNT 06:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- COMMENT Notability is not the only issue that we must deal with. Just because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Misplaced Pages article. This is a really nice piece of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But not a good article for Misplaced Pages.OfficeGirl 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you please elaborate on why you see the article as primarily OR? Most of the information is sourced. It could certainly do with some editing, but I don't see why you call it a piece of OR. V-train 07:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- COMMENT Notability is not the only issue that we must deal with. Just because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Misplaced Pages article. This is a really nice piece of ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But not a good article for Misplaced Pages.OfficeGirl 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per PeaceNT. Frickeg 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERITED - the sources mentioned are not about the horcruxes - they are about the hype surrounding the seventh Harry Potter book and mention the horcruxes - the content could be used as a reliable source for information within the article but I do not think they establish the notability of the topic.]
- The aforementioned references make it clear that horcrux is at the core of the final book, thus they assert notability of the subject. Regards, PeaceNT 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Show me where in WP:NN it says that being an important aspect of the plot of the book asserts notability. ]
- The aforementioned references make it clear that horcrux is at the core of the final book, thus they assert notability of the subject. Regards, PeaceNT 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete: per nom. Article has no reliable independent sourcing. Notability within a work of fiction does not equal notability in the real life world. IvoShandor 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: ust because something is notable doesn't mean that there are enough secondary sources about the topic that we can use to write a Misplaced Pages article
- Yes it does, that is what notability is. IvoShandor 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Crucial to the plot. Blue Mirage 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Please see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NN articles have to meet the notability criteria in their own right. ]
- Keep central focus of the most-notable book series of the past decade. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Please see WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NN - articles have to meet the ntoability criteria in their own right ]