Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

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. withdrawn by nominator - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and the three reliable sources should be added to the fandom of Harry Potter article and the rest of this article deleted. It is all original research, and does not have enough notability to justify a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I must object. The article's notability exists in that it received coverage in the media, as evidenced by the sources to which the article links. Soon after the website's creation, there was a great controversy as to whether or not the project was an official continuation of the Harry Potter series or the creation of a fan, and after it was revealed to be a fan project, controversy continued over whether or not the project was legal or a case of copyright infringement. A [Google Search] for the title of the project brings up a host of websites detailing the project and the controversy surrounding it. While it may have faded from the headlines, I created the website specifically for the purpose of explaining to those hearing about the project for the first time what it was and where it came from. Although the site is fan fiction, most fan fiction does not get the degree of notoriety that this particular project has received, including a direct response and approval from J.K. Rowling herself. The website on which the project is hosted has also received millions of hits, giving it, in my opinion, a degree of notability that merits a Wikipedia article. I vote that the article should stay. --Antodav2007 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this isn't a vote, it is a discussion to establish whether this has notability or not. The easiest way to resolve this is to add more references to the article; that way, the notability will then be indisputable and will be kept. Sound like a plan? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:WEB, web content is deemed notable if it is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent published works. If you take "multiple" to mean "more than one" (which Dictionary.com does) then the fact that it is the subject of the two newspaper articles (The Scotsman and News.com.au) already linked in the article means that is notable. As for other sources, it also seems to have been covered by BlogCritics and CBC Radio. I think the article probably needs some cleanup but it is notable enough to exist. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just add some references and there will be no doubt. Having an extensive article like this underpinned by two solid references is not nearly enough. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how many references would you consider to be enough? (This may sound sarcastic, but I don't mean it to be.) WP:WEB specifies only that it requires multiple sources to prove notability. Article length is not mentioned there at all. Why should an extensive article need more sources to prove notability? If this article was shortened, would it require fewer sources to be notable? As far as I am aware, either something is notable or it is not. Things are not "notable enough for a stub article" or "notable enough for a featured article". They are just notable.

Of course, I understand that in order to produce a greater quantity of good quality non-OR content in an article you would likely need a greater quantity of sources also. But that is a cleanup/content issue, not a notability issue, and I don't think that's a reason for deletion.

By the way, I haven't actually read this fanfic, so I'm not sure I could competently edit this article. But obviously others are free to work in the sources that I've added here. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just concerned that it doesn't have enough notability for the long term, so when we go to make a Good Article out of this, we wont be able to find 20 references to fill this article in and site everything. We dont need 20 now, but if we could get to 6 or 7, we could say this should probably never be deleted, and at worst it would be merged in the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about what may happen in the future, but I'm not sure that nominating this article for deletion in the present is a good way of dealing with that. Maybe a discussion on the article's talk page would have been more appropriate? After all, we can't predict what Wikipedia policy will be in the future. Nor can we predict what reliable sources will be written on this subject in the future. We have no idea what the circumstances will be in five, ten, twenty years time, and I don't think it's helpful to speculate.

As for sources that currently exist, I've found a couple more: The Leaky Cauldron and TransWorldNews. Although, I have to ask, what is the status of reliable sources that are essentially rewrites of other reliable sources? (Such as these ones: Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Syracuse.com and The Leaky Cauldron #2.) Do these "count"? -- KittyRainbow (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher's Weekly absolutely, Syracuse looks good, School library journal looks ok. Transworld news is questionable, but I think the leaky cauldron might be alright in this instance as long as you have these other ones. Go ahead and add them as inline citations to the article and let me know if you need help with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think I can really add them myself. I know how to use ref tags and cite-web and all, but I can't see where they'd go in the article as it stands now. And, as I said, I haven't read the fic so I don't really have a good enough grasp of the subject to make serious edits to the article. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge There is a lot of fan-fic, and this one has been approved. J.K Rowling has stated that anybody can do what this person has done as long as it's respectful/not-for-profit/suitable for all ages. I think that perhaps there should be section in the main article and that this should be mentioned in that section with the references preserved. BananaFiend (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one crosses the line for notability due to it being referenced in major media such as Publishers Weekly and The Scotsman (those two alone are enough). The article needs to make clear (and I think it presently does) that this is an unofficial work, and there is some content that could be seen as crossing the line into WP:NOT territory with regards to Web guides and advertising. That, however, is an issue of content, not AFD. I agree that in 99% per cent of cases fanfic/unofficial works are inappropriate topics for articles, but if they do achieve notability through those third-party references everyone wants cited, then they're OK. A good example (in a different medium) is Star Trek: Phase II (fan series). 23skidoo (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's notable now, it's notable forever. If we have all these reliable sources, how can it possibly not be notable? Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete self-generated publicity. Possibly the author is notable, or will become so when additional books are published. The article in Pub. Weekly is primarily about someone else's work, The Harry Potter Lexicon by Steve Vander Ark. The standard for inclusion is notability, not approval by the author. DGG (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Withdraw - It has a minimum of notability, and more so than when this began. I am going to propose a merger instead. Thank you all for your efforts and comments. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has recieved enough publicity for it to gain notabality, it does deserve an article of it's own as it would be too big to merge into Harry Potter Fandom. Jammy (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story is very popular and has gained more attention then ordinary fanfic, so it would be reasonable to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.125.167 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (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.