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. Maxim_(talk) 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines[edit]

The article fails to meet the primary notability criteria - there are no independent secondary sources. There is also no real world content as described in WP:FICT. Pretty much all of the content appears to be original research so merging in it's current state probbaly wouldn't do anything good for the artilce it's merged into. Harry Potter and the the Harry Potter Universe are notable - these fictional publictions do not appear to be - notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colection of information or a guide to the Harry Potter Universe and should not contain this potential fancruft. Guest9999 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki in universe information with no real world notability Corpx 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article not just listing but giving rather full information about the Daily Prophet and the other newspapers and magazines in HP. some of these are probably individually notable plot elements throughout the series, and might well be split off into articles by themselves. Combining them in this fashion is a sensible conservative move that should be encouraged. Given the amount of published reviews and other work on HP, this should be sourceable, though it has not yet been properly sourced. How this counts as indiscriminate escapes me, writing an article describing obvious plot elements is not OR, and this is no more a guide than any article about fiction. DGG (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the information in this article is notable enought to deserve its own. The Prophet and the Quibbler and others have been "notable" enough through out the entire series, however this article does need cleaning! **Ko2007** 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things are not notable because they are an important part of a book series - even if that series is very popular WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ILIKEIT. Topics are considered notable on Wikipedia if they have significant coverage by multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. To quote WP:NN "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." - no evidence of this has been presented - without this how can any claim of notability be justified? [[Guest9999 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep per DGG and Ko2007.--JForget 00:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guest9999 is wrong in saying that Things are not notable because they are an important part of a book series . Patently false as evidenced by thousands of uncontested articles about objects in fictional universes. This seems to be part of a campaign to improperly redefine what is and is not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. older ≠ wiser 03:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that there are a lot of articles that go against policy/guidelines mean that they should exist. If you disagree with the guidelines - which are decided by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community - then you should challenge them on the policy/guideline pages not in an AfD discussion. [[Guest9999 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Reply Most guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive. The fact that there are so many articles is a far better indication of consensus than the specific phrasing or interpretation of a guideline at a particular point in time. That many of these types of articles have survived AfDs is further evidence of what the real consensus of the community in contrast to the focussed wordsmithing of a handful of policy wonks. If the actual guidelines or, perhaps, your interpretation of the guidelines, is at odds with the acceptance by the community of certain types of article, that is a very good indicator that one or the other does not reflect the actual consensus of the community. older ≠ wiser 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how anyone could interpret WP:NN in a way that means that this article meets the guideline. No one has even mentioned a secondary source yet which is what the guideline is all about. There is always room for interpretation but if the definition of notability is:

having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

and "the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability"

then I do not seen how it is possible to claim something is notable without even trying to suggest that such secondary sources exist or presenting any objective evidence. [[Guest9999 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I don't see that anyone is claiming that the article meets the criteria of the guideline as it is currently written. But that guideline is only a guideline (and a very contentious one at that) NOT an absolute, inflexible rule. Invoking a flawed guideline as if it were clear-cut policy is not helpful. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is defined by the notability criteria several people in the debate have stated that the topic is notable. WP:NN is a big guideline - giving a clear objective way to decide whether a topic should be have an article in Wikipedia - and I don't think it should just be discarded in terms of this debate. The guidelines are formed by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community and just because they are not absolute, it does not mean they should be ignored without a very good reason; I do not feel one has been given in this debate so far. [[Guest9999 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I'll concede that WP:NN represents the opinions of some editors about what notability is. From its very inception it has been contentious and to my knowledge it has never ever had anything close to a general consensus supporting every detail in it. It is a guideline, which in wikipedia parlance means it is to be used judiciously in conjunction with WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not saying it needs to be discarded, but it should never ever be interpreted as being the definitive word on what is or is not notable. It should instead be regarded as a starting point for discussions about notability. That particular guideline was NOT in fact "formed by the consensus of the greater Wikipedia community" but was the product of a relatively small group of narrowly focused editors. It is deeply problematic in many regards and constant appeals to it as if it were a definitive rule are not at all helpful. older ≠ wiser 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who won't except well established guidelines such as WP:NN and WP:WAF what about WP:NOT#PLOT which is a policy which excludes articles like this due to the complete lack of real world content. Or WP:OR another policy which states "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." - there is no evidence of any secondary sources and I would question whether the books themselves can be considered primary sources. There is also WP:5P - which states "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" as a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - encyclopaedias are tertiary sources based upon secondary (and sometimes primary) sources; I do not think that this article falls within that catagorisation. [[Guest9999 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
...wha? Isn't the work itself the exact definition of a primary source? --Kizor 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pottercruft. JIP | Talk 10:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable secondary sources to attest to the notability of the newspapers and magazines as a separate element of the Harry Potter Universe. -- Whpq 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loving the term "Pottercruft". No secondary sources cited (or even available) - this is the kind of thing that belongs on a fan wiki. •97198 talk 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- you may also enjoy "CRUFTCRUFT" ... John Vandenberg 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to a Harry Potter wiki. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT (as almost all the elements of this article are plot-related, and also doesn't meet the standards set by WP:WAF. bwowen talk•contribs 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No one has established notability. Those interested should be transwikied or mentioned in the respective book/film articles. Judgesurreal777 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate arcticle. This information is important, but not important enough to deserve its own page. Cdlw93 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Harry Potter Universe. This article is very crufty, but SOME of the contents can be mentioned in the target article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as DGG pointed out, there is academic coverage of these fictional newspapers, both because every element of this series is worth putting under the microscope in order to understand its success, and because people use successful popular culture elements as learning aids and to hang general discussion on. John Vandenberg 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of those articles are about other things and mention The Daily Prophet or The Quibbler. Mentioning something in a Law Review article does not mean that it has "academic coverage." Are there are any articles that are actually about these fictional papers and magazines? It needs to be the primary focus of academic material (not just mentioned in passing) in order to have "academic coverage." bwowen talk•contribs 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded and referenced the Daily Prophet section; let me know what you think. John Vandenberg 07:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing here to establish that this particular aspect of the Potter novels is in any way notable. Gatoclass 03:41, 8 September 2007 (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.