Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series (5th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus appears to be fairly clear here Black Kite (t) (c) 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Harry Potter series

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chronology of the Harry Potter series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics


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

Although based on a notable work of fiction, this article a derivative article, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia, the chronology does not meet notability by itself and lacks real-wold notability. The references used fail to meet the criteria for reliable sources and the sources used seem to be unreliable as only one or two are independent and even those do not treat in much detail the chronology, only allusions to events in a short form that can be easily integrated in the main Harry Potter articles. The chronology seems to be original research since there are no independent publications that mention an official chronology, only fansites which have created the chronology based on the books. The chronology itself is more in line with material for a fansite than for an encyclopedia and the article is written with an in-universe perspective. Reading the former nominations, I believe that the issues that were raised before are still prevalent and the article still has the same problems that were raised by others. It still lacks independent sources for verification and still seems like a synthesis of published material that advances a position. Any relevant material from this chronology should be kept in the Harry Potter articles per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. The article also fails to meet the criteria of fiction-related subjects and, in my opinion, this is an unnecessary content fork that falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion.Jfgslo (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the second discussion under this title. Discussions before renaming are linked on the talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar content is available in chunks such as http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Events_prior_to_1800 etc, we would want to explore that more Sadads (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Derivative works are not frowned on. THis is a summary argticle that includes material that could appear in many other articles and is useful for Harry Potter fans. If fan sites include this sort of thing then we have a source, and a demonstration that the topic is valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is against the rules to create articles that are only plot summaries, as is the case here, and fan sites are unreliable sources that cannot be used at all in articles, not even to demonstrate the topic would be notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly is it only plot summery, while the first half discusses the plot, it is not summary as far as I can see. Outback the koala (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong delete, per Jfgslo's arguments. Many of the entries and dates are original research by synthesis, and are often sourced to unreliable websites. The article also lacks real-world content. But worst of all, the article fails to establish its notability, why would we need it if there are no independant secondary sources dealing with the subject ? The chronology of the Potter world has not been covered enough to warrant an article here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Looking back at the previous AfDs, which have not been listed here for reference. The same arguments apply then as they apply today; for notable fictions of a degree of complication, timeline articles are notable. The interweaving of past events in the various vols. of the series fully justify the virtues of an article like this. It's an article based on the Harry Potter books so the books themselves are quite reliable and even those have been written about in other books also based on ...the original books. The only issue I see here is editors having to work through any disagreements and writing the entire article to avoid in universe concerns. It is Notable and well-sourced. You might not like it, but Wikipedia does Fandom. Sourcing in-universe dates from the canon is just as good sourcing as taking hockey scores from the relevant league's yearbooks. Bottomline: It's encyclopedic and I disagree with the nom. Outback the koala (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outback, I think you're seriously mistaken. The plot of the Harry Potter saga certainly doesn't warrant such an article. It's not that it is particularly complex, only that it relies on several fictional past events, but even these are pretty straightforward and easily understandable in the plot summaries. Besides, most of the entries here are only birthdates and generic events not even tied to the main plots of the various novels, making this article mostly trivial. If, as you claim, the interweaving of past events complicates the plot so much, then do you really think this list would spend time on things like "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" ? The truth is, this list is mostly trivial, and stripped of all the useless entries it would just be very short and very similar to the already existing plot summaries.
That the original HP books are notable has nothing to do with this. Each article has to prove its own notability, which this list fails to do. This list is just non-notable because there is no coverage about it in reliable secondary sources. The article isn't well-sourced either since it uses unreliable sources such as fansites. And you might not like it, but no, Wikipedia doesn't do fandom. Bottomline, it's not encyclopedic (if it was, there would be secondary sources dedicated to the subject, which is not the case).Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Folken, I disagree with your interpretation. When the topic is notable such as here with regard to the HP series, I would say that such a sub article is also notable. I strongly disagree with deleting the page, but I do think that some of it warrants removal, under a variety of policies. That said, that does not mean we should delete off the project all of this information! Deletion in this case is extreme when compared with alternatives like merging. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I'm aware that some fans have deduced the dates of the events in the books, I don't think any of them are RS. As for those dates provided by the author, they're all for trivial stuff. We don't even need to get into the issue of whether a chronology of Harry Potter is something we should have (for the record, I don't think so), because this fails on other counts. Roscelese (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK from Harry_Potter#Plot. Notability of a franchise does not allow the creation of multiple articles about the exact same thing with different presentation... especially when this one is entirely a plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I came looking specifically for this, so it is wanted and needed. It would be inappropriate to add the extensive chronology to the main page. There are a great many articles on television programmes which have sub-pages, it is more appropriate for literature of merit and complexity. Verification is in the books. Not being able to see the need for particular information is a ridiculous attitude to elevate. Sources of information should not be based on populist desire but upon the existence of the information itself. There are a great many things that I have looked up on Wikipedia which have been deleted or marked for deletion. This information is wanted. Leave it there. There are millions of Harry Potter fans and they will all look this up at some point. If you delete it, someone else will create it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.7.231 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to remember why we are here, which is to build an encyclopedia, not to follow policies. The policies are just a tool to help us create a good encyclopedia, but if a policy results in deleting a valuable and popular article, then there is something wrong with the policy and it should be ignored or changed. I asked several people who only read Wikipedia, and they thought this was a good topic to have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment

Per DRV, this article is being relisted for additional deletion discussion so that consensus may be more clearly established. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original closing rationale was: The result was delete. Usefulness and popularity are not reasons for keeping a page. Synthesis and original research, combined with the lack of demonstrated sourcing, is a reason to delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I consider this relisting particularly scandalous as consensus for deletion was clearly established (7 to 4, claiming that "arguments here are split almost equally" or "consensus read incorrectly" is just wrong, blatant manipulation and consensus denial), and as all the arguments in favor of a relisting consisted in trampling the established policies according to which the article was deleted the 1st time. Seriously, since when "don't meet GNG" and "no RS" equates to "I don't like it", as JoshuaZ claimed ? If these guys want to change the rules they should start a community-wide discussion, and not relist AfDs over and over until they get the result they want.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • not actually OR, as there are many timelines for the topic around like [1] [2] [3] [4]. They may not be reliable sources, but it shows that the Wikipedia article is not original. Field Guide to Harry Potter a book has an Appendix on the topic. the book The Harry Potter Companion has a timeline. There was a court case on the topic Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. & J. K. Rowling V. Rdr Books. So there is plenty around to justify the existence of the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the links is that this is not original research, so that removes one of the arguments to delete. Several books with apendices or chapters on the exact topic count as significant coverage, these are not trivial. If a small part of the article is inappropriate it can be edited off. But that part may be OR is not a reason to delete the whole topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of OR (by synthesis mostly) in the article, particularly in the "basis" and "contradiction" sections. Original research is anything "not already published by reliable sources", thus, that fansites also mention chronology is absolutely irrelevant because they're unreliable sources, so it's not "published" material, and above all because fan-writers are highly likely to be the same persons on fansites and on Wikipedia (thus merely copying here what they themselves wrote previously), or to be influenced by Wikipedia itself, etc. Sourcing to fansites = OR. And no, one book mentionning chronology in a trivia section (thus not in detail) is not "significant coverage".Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles aren't supposed to be entirely "standard aid", they're supposed to be encyclopedic, which this article is not. If you want to understand the plot, you have Harry_Potter#Plot](and "The famous painting Gunther der Gewalttaige, showing the ancient broomstick game of Stichstock" isn't an aid at all, in my opinion).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is excessive detail really a delete argument? We are not paper, we can be as detailed as we wish to be. And we should be a detailed encyclopedia. Check the citations, tell me how much of it is OR really? Outback the koala (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excessive trivia is a delete argument because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a fansite (something which I already told you when you invoked WP:NOTPAPER and to which you refused to answer). As for the citations, they're unreliable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:PAPER; "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but we can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly" Am I misusing the WP:Paper agruement? Or is it you who is ignoring my arguements. I raised my disagreement to you opinion and interpretation of those policies above. Your use of NOTAFANSITE is not aplicable for this article because that is in regard to orginal research subjects; many of the figure on this page have not been calculated, but taken from the primary source (ie the book itself) or from a third party source. This is not a spatering of info. The intro tells us this. If we have to maybe we could cut out the lists because there is too much of a chance for random anon edits (and some have accumulated on the page and need to be removed) Outback the koala (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wouldn't hurt to quote the other parts of WP:PAPER, such as "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done [...] Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". Particularly, WP:PAPER is not an excuse to circumvent WP:IINFO which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", and I think this is even more clear with WP:PLOT which directly limits the length of a plot summary (whether in prose or in list format). As for original research, it also includes synthesis from primary sources, and fansites are not reliable sources...But these are far from being the only issues with this article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so even if we completely cut out the lists of dates, do you still support complete deletion? Outback the koala (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A chronological list sans dates? I'm fascinated by such a thing, tell us more. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only suggesting the list format may not be the best form to use. I still see no reason to delete the page. Outback the koala (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There's no OR and there are a large number of secondary sources which give parts of the chronology. Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" would be one example among many. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can easily find other dead tree sources that mention some of the issues (simply look on Google Books). Duriez is simply the one I'm most familiar with, hence the one I've mentioned. Whether something is in an appendix isn't relevant to whether or not the source is addressing the subject directly in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What is not original research is just cobbled together from what fansites have deduced from either the text or some JK Rowling's casual conversations about character histories. I was once rather deeply involved in the Leaky Cauldron among other fan forums, and had a hand in many of those "If X was Y years old at Z date, then..." conversations. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I wouldn't say this is necessarily as impossible to source as some of the comments above would claim, a detailed and exhaustive timeline such as this is better suited to a fan site. To counter claims that this is a useful or helpful article, I would say that given the many contradictions and anachronisms (as admitted in the article), the series is not meant to be strictly tied to particular real-world years, and thus presenting it as though it does actually hinders a reader's understanding of the series rather than aiding it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is totally redundant, pure in-universe, fan-cruft and unsourced. Chronologies should only be covered in the plot section of the books' articles and the Apperances section of the individual characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 10:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article functions as a navigational aid among the many Harry Potter-related articles and I disagree with the nominator that the article is a synthesis that advances a position, I don't see what position is being advanced. The sourcing of the article definitely needs to improve, but there are plenty of books that should be useful (such as [5], [6] and [7]). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the point; this thing is piece-mealed largely from unreliable fan sources. This should have closed 2 days ago as well, so hopefully this gets looked at soon. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the article does use independent sources, although it could use more. Much of it is from the the book themselves as primary, but many other books and websites are used here. I do see some fansites used as refs here and we should limit those as refs. That is not an argument for deletion though. Outback the koala (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Harry_Potter is the "navigational aid among Harry Potter-related articles", not this article. If that's your reason for keeping the article, then it proves we really have to delete it. And yes, this article proposes a synthesis of various statements from primary sources to try to prove there is (or isn't) a chronology in the HP universe. This is the very definition of OR by synthesis, and it's not up to Wikipedia establish a chronology or to point to "contradictions".
    Also, I don't see the point of linking to books that we cannot even access to verify whether they contain a single word about the topic in question. For all I know, there still isn't a single independent, reliable secondary source here.
    Finally, the people who relisted got the consensus they asked for, and even more days than necessary, when are we going to end all this ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 04:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70% in favor of not keeping the article as it is wasn't clear enough ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote... Outback the koala (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a vote, then you should have accepted "strength of the arguments" the first time.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't agree with the argument that this is "trivia" or "non-encyclopedic": Potter is important enough a literary property to justify the existence of a page like this, if it can be properly sourced. The question becomes whether the page is all OR. I don't think it is: at least a substantial portion of the content here does have legitimate citations, to the books themselves, to Rowling's comments, or to commentary by writers who could be characterized as legitimate experts on the topic. I also believe that that it would be a real shame to cut off public access to the extensive work that has gone into this page (especially given the thousands of views this page receives monthly), so if it is ultimately decided that consensus has changed enough since the 2007 keep result that helpful guides like this are no longer welcome on Wikipedia, the transwiki suggestion made above is vastly preferable to a straight deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each article must meet the notability guideline, and notability isn't inherited. Not all topics tied to Harry Potter can be included. That's why we're still waiting for "significant coverage". You don't agree that the article is trivia, but I don't see the relevance of knowing completely incidental details like characters birthdates either. There are already comprehensive plot summaries in the individual book articles, so besides the notability issue, we have a problem with WP:PLOT: the whole article is a plot summary in a list format. Then, as to OR, it has already been explained: this article proposes a synthesis of various statements from primary sources to try to prove there is (or isn't) a chronology in the HP universe. This is the very definition of OR by synthesis, and it's not up to Wikipedia to establish a chronology or to point to contradictions. And I don't see any commentary by "experts", remember, fans are not expert and fansites are not reliable sources. Deletion is also not a matter of how many people view a page, or how it would be "a real shame to cut off public access to the extensive work" (= ILIKEIT). It is a matter of whether articles "meet the relevant criteria for content". You argue that "helpful guides like this are no longer welcome on Wikipedia" ? But Wikipedia is not a guidebook.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_the_Harry_Potter_series_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1086060974"