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. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Harry Potter[edit]

WP:NOT for plot summaries, and has no reliable secondary sources for most of the statements (in fact, the article says that "Harry Potter fans have created a timeline..."). Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should be written from an out-of-universe perspective. The info in this article is the (perhaps correct) interpretation of events in the Harry Potter books, but is in no way needed to make the out-of-universe description of the subject (the books, the author, the characters) better understandable or more comprehensive. There are no outside reliable sources (like newspapers) discussing when the events in HP "really" happened, never mind when broomsticks were first used for transport. Fram 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely in-universe. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Leebo ^T/C 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research in the absence of outside sources for every date (especially the ones which are clearly deduction on the part of fans). Otto4711 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the dates all come from the books, other publications by Rowling or have been endorsed by Warner bros on the film DVDs. This example merely illustrates a case where 'fans' have published something, which has then been confirmed by official sources. It rather illustrates that Warner do not share the poor view held by some wiki editors of fan sources. Sandpiper

Wow! In-universe NOT-violating OR-synthesis unsourceable fanstuff! Delete! Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is thoroughly linked through the rest of the Harry Potter sites, and it's interesting information that I had never heard before. -Rebent
Delete per Rebent. "Interesting information that I never heard before" = original research. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would suggest that Rebent has not been reading around the subject, rather than that the article is full of OR. Articles are meant to be interesting, if possible. Michael Sanders 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been around since 2005. How did it last this long? From what I've seen of the history, evens admins have edited the page. Acalamari 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I will agree that this article is not written from an out-of-universe perspective, it is not original research. The Harry Potter Lexicon has compiled this timeline; the Lexicon is a site which the series' author J. K. Rowling uses to fact-check information while without her books and writing; the films' producers also use the site almost every day for reference. As for the significance of the timeline, perhaps it would be better to merge all this information into appropriate articles, but it is appropriate somewhere. I know that articles, meant to be written from an out-of-universe perspective, would not include this information, but to mention this as a "within the series" sidenote is something I feel is okay. I don't have a strong vote for keep, nor for delete, but the information is what is important here, and I feel it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft.--Bryson 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid argument. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia:Fancruft I am saying the article is not notable.--Bryson 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fancruft is "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the amount of editing and input into that article - including from admins who, surprise, surprise, didn't view it as unimportant - would suggest that it is of importance to more than a few. Michael Sanders 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The fact that admins have edited the article doesn't mean much. Personally, I'll edit articles that probably should be on the chopping block, just 'cause I can't stand all the terrible grammar in some of these things. (Worst is when they write a multi-clause sentence and lose track of or ambiguate who the subject of the sentence is) Now, if you want to bring said admins into this discussion and have them explain why they think the article should stay, that would be different...Zaku kai 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Harry Potter is notable, but the "Harry Potter timeline" is not. Unless there are multiple non-trivial sources (excluding fan-related sites) that discuss the Harry Potter timeline. Plasticbottle 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a question – you are aware that, though this is what one would term a "fan site," it is supported and recommend by Rowling for research relating to her series? She has a close relationship with her fanbase and knows how to sort out the right from the wrong in terms of reliable sites. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are absolutely and irrefutably wrong about that. This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopaedia. It doesn't matter what Rowling or her fans think it is, a fansite it is not. And I say this as both a Wikipedia admin and a Harry Potter fan, father of two sons both of whom are also Harry Potter fans. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias contain dates. This is an article outlining dates. Therefore, it belongs in an encyclopaedia. QED. Michael Sanders 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My cat's birthday is a date, but creating an article to include that would be original research about a non-notable cat, so it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Leebo ^T/C 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but nobody cares about your cat. Or has it been the star of numerous tv programs, films, been the subject of a series of books which have sold in the millions, and been the subject of a media circus which gets thousands of google results? Michael Sanders 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter that nobody cares about my cat, a date is a date. Note: I'm saying if we can bend the no original research policy and guidelines for writing about fiction for these dates, it would make sense to bend notability guidelines for my cat. Obviously, neither apply. Leebo ^T/C 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you know that that argument is a thoroughly stupid and childish argument. The standard for inclusion in wikipedia is sources and notability. The article is sourced - not well, but since it all comes from the books or Rowling's site, it can be improved - and it is about a fantastically popular and widespread phenomenon. Whereas no-one googles to find your cat. Michael Sanders 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No rules are being bent. There is no Original Research in the article - the information all derives from the books or from Rowling herself. And whilst the style is slightly poor, it is hardly abysmal. On the other hand, there is no way - unless your cat has been the star of a few films and books - that an article on your cat (let alone its birthdate) would be at all notable. And such facetious arguments are hardly to your credit. Michael Sanders 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I don't understand the meaning of your comment about dates in an encyclopedia then. The only reason for including an article with dates in it, in your comment, is that it encyclopedia's have dates. I'm saying that the presence of dates alone has no bearing on the article's status. Leebo ^T/C 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Clearly not. My comment was in answer to the claim that 'this is not a fansite, it is an encyclopaedia'. Right. It's an encyclopaedia. My point was that encyclopaedias contain dates, and since this is an article containing dates relating - and this is the part your cat will be disappointed to hear - to a notable subject. Its justification in being included in an article is jaw-droppingly obvious. Michael Sanders 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's what you didn't indicate - dates related to notable subjects. I don't disagree that Harry Potter is notable, and that my cat is not. I do think that it's in-universe original research though. That's why I think the fact that it being notable in-universe original research shouldn't override it. Leebo ^T/C 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't original research in it - all the information in there derives from Rowling. If you want, you can flag up what you believe to be OR on the article talk page. Michael Sanders 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fbv meant that the Harry Potter Lexicon, from which the article's information is drawn, is a fansite. Zaku kai

Keep Since the series refers repeated to events taking place outside the span of the narrative, and since a recurrent theme is the reconsideration of the roles of the characters, a timeline is clearly relevant and notable. DGG 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of tiny -- and not entirely consistent -- reference points spun up into a giant original-research-o-rama. Kind of like cotton candy/candy floss, where a little bit of sugar is spun up into a giant fluffy cloud. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not spun out by us, merely reported by us and sanctioned by Warner Bros who have adopted the result of this research into their official background information. Sandpiper

Keep Gives the reader a greater understanding and grasp of events in the series Michael Sanders 08:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe information all comes from the books, and as such is all sourced, or in principle could be, to the relevant reference to a book/chapter.(or comments by Rowling) A similar list was compiled and published by HP-Lexicon on their website. This list was adopted by warner bros, and included in the DVDs of the films which they have issued, so again the timeline itself has also been largely published separately and is accessible by anyone with a copy of the film DVD and a computer. To be more precise on this claim of authorship, Warner have acknowledged privateley assistance from HP-Lexicon in creating their films, but have not publically acknowledged where they got the info. However, Lexicon maintain their claim, which is published on their website, and also comment that a mistake in their original posted timeline was reproduced precisely in the one published by Warner. The information collected in this way is useful to any reader wanting to better understand the events of the books. It is not a plot summary, as it does not summarise the plot. Rather, it analyses the information and presents in a more useful way than simply re-telling the story. It is not OR, firstly because it is merely a tabulation of dates extracted wherever they occur, but secondly because it has been published elsewhere. As to e.g. when broomsticks were first used for transpot, I fancy this comes from the book by Rowling 'Quidditch through the ages', so is sourced. A lot of trivia about HP has been released by Rowling either in these ancillary books, or in her continuing posts on her website, e.g. 'wizard of the month'. As far as I am aware, being in- or out- universe is no criterion for deleting anything. It might argue for rewriting, but I'm not exactly sure how you would propose rewriting a list of events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

quick, that sometimes irritating bot Sandpiper 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective. (bolded and italicized in original). Furthermore, retelling plot events, no matter in what form, is to me a plot summary. That it is a widely distributed plot summary is irrelevant in that case. Finally, being WP:USEFUL is not an inclusion criterium. Fram 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the solution to that is to ask someone to rewrite it from an out of universe perspective. Not delete it.Michael Sanders 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:USEFUL is an essay, not a policy. And there is a difference between making wikipedia a phonebook and providing information about a very popular book, which a lot of readers want to read about. Remember, we are here to serve the readers, not the opinions of those editors who dislike 'low-brow' articles. And there are plenty of readers who want to be able to find out information which is important to the novel. And it is better that we provide that information - since we can ensure that it is trustworthy and reliable - than allow readers to slope off to a website that may have wrong information. Is that not the point of wikipedia? Otherwise, why bother? Let the readers go to Britannica or Encarta for information on science and history, let them google for information on their favourite soaps and pop-stars! What is the point of wikipedia, if we do not write about everything that we are interested in - provided, of course, that it is notable enough, and is sourced. This article is on an extraordinarily notable subject, is part of a phenomenon. It is not well sourced, or well written; that can be improved. But if there is any purpose at all in wikipedia, it is to ensure that we provide as thorough articles and subjects as possible. Which this article goes towards fulfilling. We all know that wikipedia's strengths lie not in its accuracy, or writing style - how could it? - but in the breadth and depth of the subject matter. This attitude only destabilises that strength. Michael Sanders 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please understand that the information is not OR nor NN, the article is just not in top form. It should be tagged as unreferenced and out-of-universe, but the content is important. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking a style guideline about how to organise an article is not grounds for deletion. By word count about 50% of the article discusses how dating has been arrived at and is entirely real world , out of universe discussion of the books. As to the list of dates arrived at, I really don't see how this would be significantly different if in officially in-universe or out-universe style. Sandpiper

Delete - OR fancruft. Probably NN too. - Crockspot 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable despite its appearance on the DVDs? And a pledge of support from J. K. Rowling? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks and delete: This is a tough one. On the one hand, it is true that the page is in-universe and therefore doesn't comply with the fiction style guide, and that nothing on the page independent satisfies the notability guideline. On the other hand, failure to comply with a style guide is normally an issue for clean-up, not deletion, and there's a good argument that since Harry Potter as a whole is notable, this particular topic, if encyclopedic, would be appropriate for a sub article under the article series guideline. Ultimately, though, I think it's appropriate to delete for the following reasons:
1. The list is unacceptable original research, because many of the dates are obtained through a series of deductions based on various references in the text.
2. The list is, IMHO, overly detailed for Wikipedia, which is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, the list probably is a good choice for Wikibooks, which has an excellent and detailed analysis of Harry Potter and would benefit from the addition of this list. Send the list to Wikibooks, where it will be more at home. TheronJ 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless multi million dollar films and the companies creating them are considedered unreliable sources of information, it is not OR. The description of how the dates were originally derived is accurate, but they have in any event been adopted as official. The article is one of maybe 300 in the HP series, and as such deals with the issue of relative dates for all the articles. It is a necessary part of the understanding the whole. Sandpiper

*Keep : simply NOT OR because all this was used in an official Warner Bros DVD that is JKR-sanctionned (thus it is false to say "has no reliable secondary sources"). Had WB not re-used this timeline in an official product, I would have agreed that despite obviously being correct it was still OR according to WP's criteria. But that's not the case, it's featured in an official product. Folken de Fanel 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: opinion changed after reflecting upon this. Article is non-notable on Wikipedia, it is enough to write the revelant dates in one single sentence in the relevant articles.Folken de Fanel 22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the whole timeline was published on a Warner Bros DVD, why is the Wiki page not a copyright violation? Did Warner Brothers credit Wikipedia, or did WB or some other author claim copyright? Thanks, TheronJ 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For one, it appears WB took the information from the Lexicon without attributing claim to that page (see the section on that page called "The Official Timeline"). For another, it is not a word-for-word copy. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. The original data, then, is copyrighted either by Warner Brothers or by the website that alleges that they copied its material; in either case, it's not public domain. If the page were attributed to the DVD, that would resolve OR problems, but, IMHO, raise copyright problems. Even with minor rewording, I don't think the page would avoid copyright issues. With major rewording, IMHO you would be back to an OR problem. TheronJ 21:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Surely anything from the Lexicon would be in the public domain (their issue with WB was crediting of derivation, rather than with demands for royalties)? Michael Sanders 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The Lexicon website has a copyright notice "Original content (c) 2003-2007 The Harry Potter Lexicon", and they've disabled copy paste so that when you copy, you get a copyright notice instead of their site text, so I would say it's not public domain. More generally, if Wikipedia is copying Lexicon material, then it's just wrong for Rowling to be directing traffic to us; we should have a link to the Lexicon, and they should get the hits that their work has generated. TheronJ 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - er what? information is not copyright, only the particular form of words. Otherwise there would be nothing in any article here at all. Sandpiper 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't follow either. Rowling is not directing traffic to Wikipedia, she has sanctioned the Lexicon. She has never acknowledged Wikipedia. And, as Sandpiper said, how can information be copyrighted? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh. I'll give that some thought, but let me get this straight. (1) The dates on the Wikipedia page weren't calculated by Wikipedia editors, they were calculated by the authors of The Lexicon page. (2) Rowling has stated that she personally relies on The Lexicon. Is that right? Also, where has Rowling stated #2 and why isn't it sourced in the article? TheronJ 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (1)I would say the majority of dates-events are simply extracted from the books or specific statements by Rowling. e.g, Minerva McGonagall is asked how long she has been teaching and says so. Therefore a trivial calcualtion says the date she started was that number of years before the year in which that book is set. The clues referred to in the introduction were used to determine the school year of one set of characters. From, this a number of other dates simply follow. Similarly, another set of clues defines the school years of a second set of characters and more dates therefore follow from the text. The assembly of these clues was originally done and first published as an argument for particular reference dates by Lexicon. The resulting dates were then effectively confirmed by their publication as official background information, by Warner bros. So while the Lexicon proposed one method of fixing dates, I am not sure precisely whether this is Warner confirming their method, or simply using authorial fiat to choose to make the official dates happen to agree with those suggested by Lexicon. No one has exactly confirmed that Lexicon's orignal arguments determining the reference dates were right or wrong, the dates have simply been adopted. In one sense, the reference dates may literally not have existed before lexicon's contribution. However, now they officially do exist as background information about the characters. So essentially the dates now exist on many websites simply as information extracted from the body of official information published in connection with the series. The dates on this page are a collection of such information, and a similar page (well, several and in more detail) exists on Lexicon. The now official dating therefore has many sources outside wiki or Lexicon. However, Lexicon lays claim to the method of dating and to an original contribution to the stories. This is, in its own right quite interesting. A website arguably altered the course of the books.
        
        (2) is a bit easier. See Harry Potter Lexicon. Rowling stated that she is in the habit of working in cafes etc, and that she has been known to check a fact about her books on the Lexicon website, rather than go to a bookshop and buy a copy to check something. Sandpiper 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. More suited for fansites. Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the fact that the information was used in official DVD editions of Warner Bros, it is not OR, by any means. Arfan 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but is a plot summary, which violates WP:NOT, and which was the first reason it was nominated. It is just a different method to present the stories, fundamentally in-universe, and is thus a plot summary. Ergo: it should be deleted. Fram 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic and plot summary. How has this survived so long? Bartleby 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My reasoning is different than the original nomination though. If this was published on the DVD's, it would be a copyright violation to reproduce it. If it were real life dates, then no one can copyright that, but this is not the case here. Slavlin 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is plagued with constant Original Research and speculation. I can't see how sentences like "It is possible that Fudge could be referring to a more distant predecessor" is in any way relavant. There is not ONE singal source that states Rowlings world is meant to parrallel the real world. All other sources are fan sites trying to compare the Harry Potter universe to the real world and is completely original research, or where sourced, it is still unreliable sourcing (citing fan pages)... which don't have notibility. Thought of course this will end as no consesus because it is to popular... I gave up trying to remove OR from Harry Potter pages ages ago because the fandom is to strong. Even the timeline is a copy edit problem, stolen from the DVD, the rest of the article is just plain OR and fancruft.--Dacium 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it all derives from the books, and from what Rowling has said. It matches the timeline from Lexicon and the DVD, yes, because they wrote it out from the same sources. I already asked those editors who believe there is OR in the article to demonstrate it on the article talk page. No one has done so. Michael Sanders 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards. For Wikipedia, you have to show that it is NOT original research under guidelines in WP:OR. This includes Unpublished synthesis of published material. "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Slavlin 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the books, Rowlings interviews and websites. And yes, it hasn't been sourced properly. But that can be done in time. However, there is nothing in the wikipedia rules to justify the deletion of an article if assured that it is not Original Research; rather, you point out questionable figures or claims. Michael Sanders 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voted keep (mainly because the claims that the dates in themselves are OR is false), but I might change my opinion...It's true that if we remove all the OR in the article, there only remains the list.

So, what we have to know is what would be the use of such a list ? Knowing the age of the characters ? This can easily be mentionned in a single sentence in the relevant articles. Knowing when the books are supposed to happen ? Again, a mention in the relevant articles is enough.

Really, such list can only be interesting on fan websites, and since dates have never been of great importance within the story of HP (JKR didn't even bothered to mention precise years, except for one occasion, Nick's "deathday" -or whatever-) the notability on Wikipedia is probably close to zero...Folken de Fanel 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A description of the way the date references were originally derived by lexicon is not OR, in fact it is more by way of history now, since it is detailing how the relative dates in the originally published books became absolute dates confirmed by warner bros. But leaving aside why we might dismiss half the article from consideration, the dates are important. Firstly, the article serves to collect all the date information in one place where it can be referred to from all the articles rather than being repeated all over the place. Second, it helps to understand how events relate to each other, if there is a straightforward list which can be referred to. The article is one part of a rather large series. Sandpiper 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we could argue that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, above all for such a trivial subject (dates in themselves are not important, otherwise JKR would have elaborated on them -but the events are important, of course). Then, WP is not a plot summary either, what's the point of summing up all the events in a chronological order, if it's already given in the books (with indications concerning the order) ? We would have to add analyses and all to avoid being exclusively in-universe. What could we say more ? POV statements that Warner stole lexicon's chronology, and OR to fill in the blanks between JKR's various inconsistencies (btw, would these exist if dates were so "important"? ) ?Folken de Fanel 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Show me a secondary or tertiary source documenting this and I'll gladly change my !vote. RFerreira 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RFerreira, though I would want to see more than just a single source -- I think there are notability concerns as well as original research issues. `Mike Christie (talk)

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.