Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Wizarding War: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m formatting
Line 127: Line 127:
*'''Comment''' While I agree this article appears to be nothing more than a plot dump, the argument pointed out above concerning the LOTR series is also quite relevant. The Battle of Isengard should also be deleted, because it too is nothing more than plot summary. The same can be said of any article involving parts of a book, or parts of a "universse", including anything Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time etc...[[User:Kilroy55|Kilroy55]] 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' While I agree this article appears to be nothing more than a plot dump, the argument pointed out above concerning the LOTR series is also quite relevant. The Battle of Isengard should also be deleted, because it too is nothing more than plot summary. The same can be said of any article involving parts of a book, or parts of a "universse", including anything Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time etc...[[User:Kilroy55|Kilroy55]] 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I'm going for keep on this, because it does something rather more useful than a plot description of just one book. The HP series is really one very long book in installments, and its plot ought to be treated in the same way, as a whole, or in related chunks drawn together from different books. For completeness, and for the benefit of actual encyclopedia users wanting to look up an individual book, each book article needs a plot description, but it is also important to draw together the plot as a whole. I am also not hung up on the title issue. Having read the books, the existing title is entirely understandable and consistent with references within the books. There is no reason a title needs to slavishly copy a reference in a book rather than being descriptive. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I'm going for keep on this, because it does something rather more useful than a plot description of just one book. The HP series is really one very long book in installments, and its plot ought to be treated in the same way, as a whole, or in related chunks drawn together from different books. For completeness, and for the benefit of actual encyclopedia users wanting to look up an individual book, each book article needs a plot description, but it is also important to draw together the plot as a whole. I am also not hung up on the title issue. Having read the books, the existing title is entirely understandable and consistent with references within the books. There is no reason a title needs to slavishly copy a reference in a book rather than being descriptive. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:*'''[[WP:USEFUL]]]''' --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:*'''[[WP:USEFUL]]''' --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Sandpiper. --<font color="green" face="Berling Antiqua">hello, i'm a [[User:Member|<font color="orange">member</font>]]</font> | [[User talk:Member|<font color="grey">talk to me!</font>]] 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Sandpiper. --<font color="green" face="Berling Antiqua">hello, i'm a [[User:Member|<font color="orange">member</font>]]</font> | [[User talk:Member|<font color="grey">talk to me!</font>]] 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
*While [[WP:USEFUL|useful]], [[WP:NOT#INFO|informative]], and perhaps even [[WP:INTERESTING|interesting]], this is fancruft. It would be a star article on a Harry Potter wiki, and I admire the passion and the thought involved in the creation of this article, but until we have decades of crticial hindsight, this is just as [[WP:N|notable]] as, say, [[that part in Star Wars where Luke goes "nooooooo!" and jumps off the ledge]], or [[when people in ''Airplane!'' go "cigarette?" "why, yes, it is"]]. In other words, not very. It '''may well be''' a central theme to the book(s) in question, but divorced from those books, it's just another plot element in another book series that some people read and some people liked. I really hope that the closing admin keeps in mind that AfD is not a vote, and that no matter how many people are arguing '''keep''', if those arguments are simply impassioned retellings of [[WP:ILIKEIT]], they are inherently poor arguments. --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
*While [[WP:USEFUL|useful]], [[WP:NOT#INFO|informative]], and perhaps even [[WP:INTERESTING|interesting]], this is fancruft. Hence, '''strong delete'''. Don't get me wrong - it would be a star article on a Harry Potter wiki, and I admire the passion and the thought involved in the creation of this article, but Wikipedia is not Sparknotes, and until we have decades of crticial hindsight, this is just as [[WP:N|notable]] as, say, [[that part in Star Wars where Luke goes "nooooooo!" and jumps off the ledge]], or [[when people in ''Airplane!'' go "cigarette?" "why, yes, it is"]]. In other words, not very. It '''may well be''' a central theme to the book(s) in question, but divorced from those books, it's just another plot element in another book series that some people read and some people liked. I really hope that the closing admin keeps in mind that AfD is not a vote, and that no matter how many people are arguing '''keep''', if those arguments are simply impassioned retellings of [[WP:ILIKEIT]], they are inherently poor arguments. --[[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:52, 27 July 2007

Second Wizarding War

Second Wizarding War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The phrase "Second Wizarding War" is purely some user's invention, so the article can't stand at its current title. Apart from moving it to "Second conflict between Voldemort and Order of the Phoenix in the Harry Potter series," there's nothing to do but delete and/or merge this sprawling plot summary. Deltabeignet 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Google search returns over 1,200,000 results: 
Search of "Second Wizarding War": 2,510,000 results
Search of "Second Wizarding War Harry Potter": 1,200,000 results
Clearly this is not "purely some user's invention". -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search of (with quotes) "Second Wizarding War" and "Harry Potter" returns 901 results. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take out Wikipedia and you get 751. Cut out blogs, forums and wikis, you have 275, with only 28 being unique.-Wafulz 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not disrupt to make a point. The examples you gave are different since the names actually are used by the fiction in question, and referred to as such (one, for that matter, is the title of a whole movie). If you feel the article should be kept, there is nothing to gain by attempting sarcasm this way. Try to provide policy or guideline to support your position, instead. — Coren (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I don't ever remember anyone saying "Hey, we just made it through the Battle of Isengard", or "we are fighting in the Clone Wars. Please point me to this so called reference to the use of the names in the books, oh wise one. Killswitch Engage 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's referred to as the Battle of Isengard in both the relevant parts of Two Towers and in retrospect in Return of the King, and the first reference ever to the Clone Wars is Obi-Wan Kenobi mentioning them by name when he notes that Luke's father battled in them. (Plus, you know, the game, animated series, and two comic series about them named "Clone Wars" or some variation.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... yeah, what he said. (Jinx!) :-) — Coren (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, LOTR is a bit too far but it is, at the very least, the title of one of the chapters. You need only go as far as Episode IV to get "clone wars"; just listen to the first exchange in Obi-Wan's house. Luke: "You served in the Clone Wars"? — Coren (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, alright, but couldn't we just move the stuff instead of delete it? It is notable as content and deserves a page, just under a different name. Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Attempted sarcasm? Do they give Nobel Prizes for attemted chemistry?:) Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move it where? Each book article has at least 10K of plot summary, plus the articles on every single event and every single character and every single place and every single thing. It's just plain redundant, as it's more excessive plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see on this page on the Lexicon, "although these larger battles have not been named in the books, we will refer to them with names to identify them in the Lexicon." They're just calling some battles by their own names for purposes of ease; we can't do that here on Wikipedia. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that this is only an argument for renaming?
I have added my opinion on the naming only. I am choosing to abstain on the keeping or deleting of the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said, poor grammar is not a reason to delete. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must be misunderstanding. The policy on self-published sources (that you even link to) says explicitly "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." In what way, then, can these be used for verifiability? I'll concede that it does provide for their use, if "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" [emphasis at source] — but still, it warns against even that. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment was based on the lack of notability for this current article, because there was/is no significant coverage established from (real world) independent sources. Corpx 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename - Rename to fall in line with a consensus on a proper title. If this was never referred to as the Second Wizarding War in the books, then I do agree it ought to be renamed. However, the article itself must be preserved (note: I support it remaining as one entity, not a shoddy merger in with a generic Potter conflicts article) The article itself is of good stock and overall good quality with minor issues which would merely require a rewrite. We already have a good example of a fictional war's representation on Wikipedia, reference War of the Ring which in itself is not greatly notable, and is an article moderately detailed, written based upon the text of the story and devoid of secondary sources (otherwise known as Original Research if this page's interpreters of original research be followed). This being the case, and applying the deletion rationales presented on this page, then the War of the Ring page must be immediately and without delay deleted out of concern for even enforcement of no original research, notability, and plot summary reasons. I see no clamor over the War of the Ring article's grievous infractions of these same principles. As it pertains to no original research codes, it is asinine to wait for a published secondary source merely to corroborate a summary any reader of the pertinent portion of the Potter series can verify. Notability should not be at issue in this case as this plot line has transferred itself into a multi-billion dollar enterprise and is now a part of a series of films. If this needs to be rewritten to ensure it abides by expanded plot summary so that it offers, "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" then do so. This is eminently possible, if not easy to achieve. Auror 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a redundant article and is already covered elsewhere. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Also, dubious title. Madhava 1947 (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename this is a well-written article but also provides comprehensive facts about the second wizarding war. Skhatri2005 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (rename if you'd like) - It seems a bit malicious and ill-thought out to delete the entire article because of its title. In the the Order of the Phoenix it is referred to as the Second War (see last chapter Second War Begins). Perhaps we should rename to that? -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Second War (Harry Potter)"? The name shouldn't be a problem, not when there's a convenient move button right on top of the page. --Kizor 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, voting is evil, we don't vote on Wikipedia Æon Insanity Now! 03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Man In Black was commenting that the above were votes, though, and not !votes (pieces of discussion). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can never remember which is which. --Kizor 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I suggest that we cool down a little and think of the situation we have in our hands first. The most pressing matter that pertains to this article is the name. Personally, I do not mind it, but the evidence shows clearly that it is unacceptable, and thus needs to change. My preferred solution would be to move it to "Conflicts in Harry Potter" (see below for more details).
    As far as the deletion of the article is concerned, however, I disagree with it completely, not only because it is a centralised article discussing a major series of conflicts (which spans several books) within a fictional universe that sets in motion all other events within said universe and is thus rather notable, but also because it has the potential to evolve into something much more than a simple plot summary.
    Besides those reasons, it is, in my opinion, too soon to make a decision as important as the deletion of an article while the whole category of articles is so unstable. I mean, a week has not passed since Deathly Hallows was published, a little patience would not harm any one.
    So, what could be done to save the article?
  1. For one thing, it could be an article about "Conflicts in Harry Potter" in general, something which would allow the article to address both Wars; since there is not enough material for the first War to create an article that is not too short, this could be an acceptable arrangement. Apart from that, the first war is not covered in the books in a linear fashion and so the information about it would not be a simple plot summary; instead, it would be information gathered from all the books, but still not constituting original research.
    And now that I think of it, we could generalise it and also add short sections about all conflicts, including the Giant Wars and the Goblin rebellions. "Conflicts" is a rather embracing term.
  2. Many notable writers and editorialists have discussed and/or written on various aspects of the Potterverse, including the Wizarding Wars. Quoting their opinion about the significance of these wars within the fictional universe of Harry Potter, about the possible reasons for their development in the way they have turned out, as well as about how plausible and real they look, would be acceptable published work and would not qualify as original research. Mind you that the series has just been concluded; much more such works are bound to be published in the following months, or even weeks.
  3. Apart from the books, there are also the films. Only Order of the Phoenix has been finished, but the other two films are bound to come, and the portrayal of the Wizarding Wars in the silver screen would be an interesting addition to the article. We all know how much is left behind, after all. And again, the importance of the Wizarding Wars would make a section about their portrayal very different from anything that can be found in any of the articles about the books or films (plus, it will be centralised).
  4. And, of course, the spelling, syntax, and grammar of the article should be immaculate, and its structure perfect. I know the opposite would be no reason to delete an article, but still.

All in all, I believe the article should be kept, or at least the discussion about its deletion (but not renaming) postponed until the situation is more stable.
I hope there is no problem with my post being so long. Waltham, The Duke of 07:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, rename and shorten It's a useful article covering a great deal of ground, but there is a lot of crossover with individual book, film and character articles. A lot of stuff could bve removed and linked. Also needs some serious referencing. --Worm 11:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not convinced that all of the material which has some basis in JK Rowlings books could be much more efficiently covered in the articles for the books. The battle templates seem to be more of an opportunity to introduce fancruft and original research (in the form of deciding who "won" a "battle" and what the "causus belli" was) than anything else. I also suspect that the metastructure of this article itself is original research as these events are not clearly demarcated from the rest of the plot as the "Second Wizarding War." Merge is just an excuse to keep this content up longer; the plot summaries for all seven books are ample, and will be well-written without this as a guide. Despite claims of some keep votes, I have not seen a single out-of-universe source for this which is further proof that it should be covered in the same manner as all plot summaries. Examples of other fictional battles are misleading because those works are fundamentally different from the HP series; JK gives far less detail and does not publish extra in-universe items with the intent of filling these out as "wars" or "battles" in the same way that Tolkien, Lucas, etc. do. I would also suggest Harry Potter Wiki or Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter for such articles that have zero out of universe value. Savidan 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Thorough article on a legit subject. -- Voldemore 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this is the major theme of the fourth through seventh books of Harry Potter. Valley2city 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move and edit. The conflict between parts of the wizarding world and in particular between Harry and Voldemort is integral to the series. Saving the world doesn't count? I would move to British Wizarding Civil War (Harry Potter), since there's no indication it moved outside of Britain more than once or twice, and provide a general review of the background to the war (issues of blood purity, class, etc.), then present the first civil war and aftermath, calm, second civil war and aftermath. Most of the content is good, just prune for unsubstantiated statements.--Aaronhumes 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colorful suggested titles like this one should be a good indication of the non-canonicity of most of the content of this article. The fact that its hard to agree on a title is not a coincidence; JK Rowling did not intend for these events to be seen as separate from the overall plot of the series. Savidan 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
which is exactly why we should be re-arranging events and presenting them in a way which makes more sense to readers. No one said Rowling wanted her books to be obvious, but it is our job to present information clearly. Sandpiper 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your proposed title, British Wizarding Civil War (Harry Potter). Obviously, you simply made this up. What was wrong with The Second War (Harry Potter), which is the proper name, given by Rowling herself in the fifth book? — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 02:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree this article appears to be nothing more than a plot dump, the argument pointed out above concerning the LOTR series is also quite relevant. The Battle of Isengard should also be deleted, because it too is nothing more than plot summary. The same can be said of any article involving parts of a book, or parts of a "universse", including anything Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time etc...Kilroy55 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going for keep on this, because it does something rather more useful than a plot description of just one book. The HP series is really one very long book in installments, and its plot ought to be treated in the same way, as a whole, or in related chunks drawn together from different books. For completeness, and for the benefit of actual encyclopedia users wanting to look up an individual book, each book article needs a plot description, but it is also important to draw together the plot as a whole. I am also not hung up on the title issue. Having read the books, the existing title is entirely understandable and consistent with references within the books. There is no reason a title needs to slavishly copy a reference in a book rather than being descriptive. Sandpiper 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second_Wizarding_War&oldid=147360684"