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 no consensus to delete. Now, there is a consensus that there likely shouldn't be an article at this title, but there's no consensus on exactly what to do with it. I am going to leave it to editors more knowledgeable about the subject to discuss and make any editorial moves, redirects, merges, and disambiguations. lifebaka++ 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. Redundant article, there are already pages for each individual soundtrack. The article voilates WP:CRUFT (what is PoA, GoF???) and some statements are left unsourced (WP:V). Merge any worthy and sourced infomation into Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (soundtrack) or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (soundtrack). Dalejenkins | 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge / Soft redirect Agreed that it's unneeded if there are already different articles for the sound track of all films. But all information should be rescued and transferred to the different articles, preferably by someone from the WikiProject who knows what is important to keep. Maybe leave the article as a soft redirect / disambig page for the different sound tracks. So#Why ^{review me!} 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect per SoWhy Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• soft redirect/disambig- unless someone can come up with a really really good reason for an article for the music in the whole series, a simple disambig page should be enough (it does seem like a plausible search term, after all). Umbralcorax (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - But this does not preclude us from recreating the article in a suitable fashion at some point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep due to clear and overwhelming consensus in previous AfD and because WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid argument for deletion. Also, we don't merge and delete per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The previous AFD was 2 years ago, and comments made there are irrelevant now as policies have changed and new articles have been created. If, as you say, merge and delete is not an option, does that mean we just delete? Also this article does not qualify for a speedy keep, you need to read WP:SK. Dalejenkins | 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it means we merge and redirect without deletion. As there is clearly verifiable information and valid redirect targets (it is a legitimate search term as not every article gets over 5,000 views a month), there is no reason for outright deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment a merger discussion doesn't need to occur here. If there isn't anything worthy of merging then push to delete the article. If there is then withdraw the nom and open a merger discussion through regular channels. I wouldn't normally argue following policy for policy's sake, but AfD is a poor forum for merger discussions. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With that said, the article appears to be a collection of unsourced or duplicated claims and original research. I don't see a single logical redirect target (not that it couldn't be redirected but that I don't know which one I would redirect it to) and I don't know what verifiable information I would merge into another article. delete it. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Avada cadabra - Uncited original research. And although a discussion may spring up elsewhere, I wholly oppose any sort of migration of this uncited content anywhere else. --EEMIV (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the hits, it's not really original research, just research that could be better cited. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first hit is sheet music and the fourth hit degrades into something about paganism. Right. Thanks for this; please add to my deletion argument "no substantiation, or even assertion, of notability." 'preciate the help, Roi! --EEMIV (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It augments the substantiation and assertion of notability and shows how deletion is not logical, because we're talking about music that doesn't just appear in purchaseable soundtracks, but that has also been made into purchaseable sheet music. Now as to secondary sources, reviews of the soundtracks, reviews of the sheet music, etc. serve that function. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel that User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles needs to read WP:ILIKEIT. Dalejenkins | 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You clealry have not read my userspace, which has stated that I am a Harry Potter fan for over a year now. However, this does not cloud my judgement on which wiki articles should be deleted or not, unlike some others. Dalejenkins | 10:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the article should be kept in some manner because it meets our policies and guidelines; I don't have any personal interest in the music from the film series (although I have seen the movies). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is just a list of tracklists. Extremely ridiculous article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is simply not true as it contains paragraphs and descriptions of the songs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, those descriptions are not needed at all because most of the Harry Potter songs are not notable, except for Hedwig's Song. An article listing every appearance of every song is nothing but fan-cruft and does not provide encyclopedic knowledge. --LøЯd ۞pεth 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Songs that appear on soundtracks for a major film franchise and as published sheet music are notable. [{WP:ITSCRUFT]] is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. Harry Potter is notable. The film series is notable. Each soundtrack is notable, but individual songs are not that notable (as they have not been individually covered by a significant amount of reliable secondary sources), only singles are. And I still do not see the point of keeping an article that is a re-tell of all tracklists with descriptions, some of which seem more like personal POV or only mention when the song appeared. I cannot imagine mentioning every single appearance of every single character in the series. --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are not talking about separate articles on songs, but one article on the music collectively. If each soundtrack is notable, then by that logic the soundtracks combine are extra notable! I don't see any point in outright deleting this article. As the paperless encyclopedia, we can afford to cover all kinds of stuff. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've already said it: each soundtrack is notable enough to get its own article. The HP music article would have been useful if the soundtracks had not had their own articles. This is not the case, I see no reason to keep an article in which all information is repeated from the separated articles with some overdetailed extra stuff. Just imagine that the current list of HP characters mentioned every scene in which every character appears. I think that the second best thing we can do with this HP music article is to transform it into a disambiguation page linking only to the soundtracks and no more, or merge it into a section in the HP film series article and only give links to the soundtracks. --LøЯd ۞pεth 03:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would not oppose making this page some kind of navigation page to the other articles, but we can do that by boldly editing over this article. We don't need to delete to do that and if we merge anything than we can't delete it per the GFDL. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Harry Potter. Also in note... a few more cites would been helpful in understanding some of the points made in the opening paragraph. Schmidt (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the result is to merge the article, I suggest to merge it into Harry Potter (film series) under a "Music" section, I think it suits there better. The information about other music, which is primarily for videogame music, can be moved to the "Games" section in the main Harry Potter article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:26, 10 August 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.