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. Kurykh 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There have been so many afd deletes related to this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Wizarding War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First War (Harry Potter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second War (Harry Potter) (Endorsed) etc.). Basically, the consensus has been repeatedly established that the events at the end of books 5 and 6 cannot canonically be called "battles" and are never refered to as such by Rowling. There is a chapter in book 7 called the "Battle of Hogwarts", however, even that should not be treated on Wikipedia with the motif of the battle infobox etc. because that requires fan original research to determine who the commanders were, who "won", etc. The events at the end of book seven can more than adequately be covered in the plot section of that article, rather than treated alongside events for which it is original research to call them battles.

Even already on the talk page there is difficulty figuring out which side Snape fought for; I think that this illustrates the problem with trying to fit Rowling's story into these parameters. The present article also comprises much content which was deleted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Harry Potter (Endorsed) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

In my view, those articles should be taken to deletion review, rather than having the content be recreated under increasingly distant titles. Savidan 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I say we should merge this article into the articles about the books that the "battles" took place in. Place the Battle of Hogwarts into the Deathly Hallows book and etc. The article may not be suited for Wikipedia, but the information is still important. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already more than adequate plot summary in all those articles, and they are likely to remain high quality without any information from this article. There is also the Muggles Guide to Harry Potter and the Harry Potter Wiki, which both already cover the content in question. Savidan 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Savidan has it on the nose; this is excessive plot summary, written in an in-universe way, an original synthesis, and completely unreferenced and unreferenceable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Frag for once at an AfD, nothing more I need to add. It's time to break out the cruft-hammer. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or transwiki or, if impossible, delete. Delete—merging or transwiki would be redundant. — Deckiller 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in-universe fancruft. The "Current Status" columns seem full-to-bursting with OR too. Miremare 20:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable secondary sourcing can be found that deals with these "battles". As-is, it is purely original research to label these fictional encounters as "Battle of X" and the extreme level of in-universe detail is in contradiction to WP:WAF. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Baring that, Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Its not origional reserch at all its all facts and information on what the characters did in those fictional battles. NOT OR Ko2007 17:29, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)
    • • Only one of these 'battles' area actually referred to as battles in the original text. To suddenly label any scuffle involving more than three people a battle would be like labeling congress as a war. -- Jelly Soup 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a textbook case of a novel synthesis, as well as plot summary overload. — TKD::Talk 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing needing a second article, can be sufficiently described in the book articles. i ^said 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just full of in universe content, no real notability established, but this'd be perfect for a fan site or fan-wiki Corpx 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki - unsourced, unnotable origional research. [[Guest9999 13:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

It's a Wikia wiki, so we don't really have any business dumping articles on them like we do with our sister projects...:) Savidan 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overwhelming consensus to get rid of it in the nominator's cited AFDs Will ^(talk) 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is a ridiculous collection of trivia presented in the stupidest way possible. Where are the sources? Where is the actual prose? Where is the relevance to the real world? ' 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The articles in the books are sufficient. There is no point including the same content twice. But the editing difficulties alone are not the reason. DGG (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is clear, with only the question about Snape a problem. This article has been a help to me in my edits, and it's worthy of an encyclopedia. We have articles of the battles in WWII, so why not about Harry Potter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebiloobil (talk • contribs)
  • Please back up your arguments by comparing it with the policies and guidelines. World War II was a real event, effecting billions of lives, documented by thousands of primary and secondary sources. Harry Potter is a fictional universe that has effected a few million fans at most. There is a big difference between the two. Since Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia incorporating some elements of specialty encyclopedias, we must have a threshold of notability as an extension of our policies. For fiction, that threshold is significant real-world content, whether it be from interivews, critical reception, merchandise, etc. WP:FICT is to prevent hundreds of articles on aspects of a fictional universe that can be summarized in a couple paragraphs by a decent writer. We must show a topic is worthy of a subarticle not by pages of retellings, but by establishing real-world perspective and real-world content to complement the plot summary. After all, if people want to basically read every aspect of the plot (or perhaps the interpretation and speculation that comes with some of these pages), they can purchase the book or go to a fansite. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must be academic. That is the essense of writing about fiction on Wikipedia. If you or anyone feel that WP:FICT is too strict, please chime in at the bottom of WT:FICT and share your thoughts. — Deckiller 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article may help others in their edits as it has ^^^^^ note above edit. With a little clean up it could be great! Please dont delete!!! Ko2007 13:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have added references to this and will be doing more eidting hopefully this can be resolved with the best possible outcome! Ko2007 15:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: struck above !vote, as that this user has already voted once. Miremare 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the reference added, its to a Harry Potter fansite. Leaving that aside, JK only uses the phrase "final battle" to refer to the end of Book 7. She never calls it the "Battle of Hogwarts" or (ugh) the "Second Battle of Hogwarts" nor does she refer to anything else as a "Battle." Savidan 15:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:The mere fact that the source is a fansite isn't really relevant; it's a transcript of a webchat with J. K. Rowling held on the Bloomsbury web site. I'd consider that a reliable source. However, the mentions of the battle in that webchat aren't enough to justify this article existing apart from the articles on the respective books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, other delete comments, and previous AFDs. This is nothing more then a rehashed version of the already deleted articles. Much of the article is WP:TRIVIA and the rest fails WP:FICT and WP:NOTE. Just because Harry Potter fans wish to have the information on Wikipedia does not mean we should ignore our policies and guideline. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki, if possible. If not, delete, but with no prejudice against eventual recreation once reliable secondary and tertiary sources develop. Once sources like those used in Battle of the Pelennor Fields are published (as I have no doubt they will), Wikipedia can have an article on this subject. But until then, there's no justification for this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being as the same content has been deleted more than once, I think a DRV would be in order. Savidan 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of them did go to DRV and their deletion was endorsed. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was responding to Josiah Rowe's claim (mosty in his edit summary actually) that there should be no predjudice against recreation. I think there should be, inasmuch as it should have to go through DRV. Savidan 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I said there should be no prejudice against recreation once reliable secondary sources exist. The burden for providing those sources will be on an editor who recreates the content. Any recreation without such sources can and should be zapped with the Elder Wand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being as the Wikipedia community has deleted this content almost ten times now through afd (and more through recreates being speedied), it's not unreasonable to ask that those sources be brought to DRV. Savidan 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom, also, these articles seem to have been created just when Second Wizarding War etc were up for deletion - so it's spam — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 14:16, 20 August 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.