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 keep. In such a heavily contested debate, I feel it's important to come to a conclusion; I could easily have closed this as "no consensus" as there were plenty of people in each camp. Instead, I have made this decision based on the arguments. From the debate, I see three main reasons for deletion: (1) insufficient sourcing, (2) OR by synthesis, and (3) notability. Insufficient sourcing is a borderline deletion reason in the first place (sourceability is more to the point) but in any case, there are loads of citations, and many users feel that the sourcing is not insufficient, which makes this an editing concern. The OR by synthesis argument did not gain traction, and was well-rebuffed. The notability concern is the strongest: it seems some users feel that the topic itself must have been the subject of independent works for the topic to be important enough to cover. In this case, I have to conclude that that judgement has not been accepted, and WP:NOT#Paper gives clear guidance on topics that not everyone agrees are suitable for inclusion: keep it, there's no harm. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In writing the above, I had actually not counted !votes, but after writing it I did so, and the count does favor keeping by a decent margin. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Harry Potter[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted at AfD. A reposted, edited version was then speedy deleted as CSD G4. A DRV consensus (very narrowly) determined the new draft was distinctive enough to warrant its own AfD. The matter is submitted for full consideration, especially of WP:SYNT issues. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Strongly agree with the above - the only people who are ever going to care about this will have read the book already. I can just about tolerate fancruft articles for, say, a long-running TV series where someone might not have seen every episode, or might not remember the details & hence an entry might be useful (along the lines of, "which Star Trek episode was it where Captain Kirk had to kill Joan Collins to stop the human race becoming extinct?"), but it's a reasonable guess that anyone who cares enough about Harry Potter to be looking things up here will own all six books. If this is going to be kept, it should be on Wikibooks and not here. Otherwise, why not have a similar article for every work of fiction? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you that the US initial print run for the next book is 12 million copies. That is unprecedented. So the 'few' people who have read the book in english as their own deliberate choice will be around 50-100 million? Two of the HP artcles are in the top 100 accessed articles on wiki. So what are the odds that this article gets more hits than most on wiki? I would also remind you that people are creatures of habit. If someone looks up their favourite book on wiki, they may also click a few links and start reading something else. This principle has been noted by quite a few schoolteachers, trying to persuade people to read books for pleasure, and the books are now included as required reading for teaching students in the uk (I know one). The issue of exactly when things happen in the stories is important to understanding various elements of the plot. The existence of the article solves a number of potential difficulties for people maintaining other articles, because it sidesteps debate about dating on the page of individual articles, and presents the available information all in one place, here, where they can read before messing with all the dates in other articles. Sandpiper 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the conceptually rather similar Narnian timeline is a featured list. Sandpiper 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I were the Emperor of Wikiland, I'd happily delete the Narnian timeline as well; but the reason that won't happen is that the Narnia one's sourced and referenced to multiple independent non-trivial sources, whereas the Harry Potter one may have 163 references, but all are either to the books themselves, to fansites or to Harry Potter Lexicon - which is where this article, along with its many cousins, ought to be instead of on Wikipedia. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Cyrus Andiron. You wrote, Why do we need an article that regurgitates information that can be found in the books?. The whole principle of an encyclopedia is to regurgitate information found elsewhere. (I am not trying to be sarcastic and hope you don't take it that way; I just can't think of another way to express the idea.) The article supplements others on the Harry Potter books and provides information so that readers will not have to go to the books (which, if I'm not mistaken, comprise more than 1000 pages). -- Black Falcon 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2500 pages, 3000 including forethcoming final book Sandpiper 00:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Reply to Black Falcon All right, I'm going to hit a few points here. First of all, you are defending the article without any prior knowledge, and I commend you for that. And you can support it, but without any context, you have no idea what any of the dates mean. Therefore, you could not use the page. If someone does not have any prior knowledge of Harry Potter, like you, then the dates hold no significance. The article is only intended for people with a reasonable knowledge of the plot. I believe that an encyclopedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work that covers a wide variety of topics that are accessible to everyone. This article does not adhere to that. And you can argue that there are other articles out there (Quantum Physics) that are also not accessible. But then we're getting into a case of comparing and that is counterproductive. I would still like you to address the absence of notable, non first party sources. Also, please keep in mind AGF. I do not believe that it was necessary to comment that Iridescenti holds a bias for one side. Let's keep this civil. --Cyrus Andiron 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain, please, Cyrus? It clearly explains where the dates derive from, the noted problems with them, even touches briefly on the controversy that surrounded the timeline (with Warner Bros and the Lexicon site squabbling that each deserved the credit). And then the timeline itself explains how all the dates fit together, and the relevance of each to the plot of the novel. A reader not up to speed with the books might find it dull (but then, there are no doubt people who'd question the scintillation factor of an article on Quantum Theory, or the origins of Satan in Western thought), but not unintelligible. Nor is a lack of sources outside the novel grounds for deletion: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Sources for articles on fiction says, "In addition to the source material, there are many sources of in-depth information for writers of article on fictional subjects (although some are more reliable than others). Note that when using the fictional work itself to give plot summaries, character biographies, and the like, the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary." Does that or does that not mean that secondary sources are encouraged, but not required? Otherwise, one would expect some sort of warning. Michael Sanders 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the dates like this: 1979 - the year in which Regulus Black, the brother of Sirius Black, is shown as having died on the Black Family Tree have no meaning to someone who is not familiar with the series. That makes it accessible to only a certain group of people. Also, we are not talking about plot summaries, we are talking about a collection of dates. I do not believe that the argument you suggested applies to this discussion. There is a difference between a timeline and a plot summary. I believe that this applies much more: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. That comes directly from here. --Cyrus Andiron 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1) the phrase "wherever possible" - implying that when such are not available, primary sources may be used (provided that they are used correctly, as specified elsewhere) and 2) That is no specific ban on the use of primary sources and 3) That is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Michael Sanders 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles. I've made my points above and stated my belief that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia and cannot be attributable to reliable sources. --Cyrus Andiron 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cyrus Andiron. I have no idea what any of the dates mean as long as I don't read the main Harry Potter articles (that's what I mean by "this article supplements others"). Not all articles are required to comprehensively cover everything about a topic. Otherwise what's the point of internal links and "See also" sections? Some topics are inherently more specialised and require that they be linked to more general pages (as, for instance, the pages on the Harry Potter books). Regarding Iridescenti, I did not say that he is "biased" but rather that his statements suggest (to me) that his argument is "based" in a personal opinion that the subject matter of timelines of fictional universes is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This viewpoint, although it is one with which I disagree, is neither "evil" nor in any sense morally wrong. Also, I do see it is a far-fetched inference given his expressed desire to see deleted a featured article on a similar theme. I also do not think, nor did I intend to imply, that he acts in bad faith; I merely stated my impression of his comments. -- Black Falcon 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. You are correct to note that I support retention of "the article without any prior knowledge" of the books. Although you made no other comments on that point, I should note that I have restricted my appraisal of the article solely to whether the content presented meets Wikipedia policies and whether I feel the arguments for deletion stand up to scrutiny. -- Black Falcon 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Iridescenti. You wrote, the only people who are ever going to care about this will have read the book already. That is, quite simply, incorrect. I obviously care enough to participate in the DRV and this AFD, yet I have not read any of the Harry Potter books. In fact, I don't even know the titles of half of them. There's Goblin of Fire, Sorcerer's Stone, Wizard of something (I want to say Alcatraz, but I know that's wrong), and ... that's all I know. The fact that you wish to delete a similar better article that is a featured list suggests to me that your argument may be based in your personal dislike of the subject matter of the article rather than a problem of the article itself. -- Black Falcon 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Iridescenti. The Narnia article appears to have only three sources mentioned. Two appear to derive from the same person, who claims to have been given a copy of the timeline by CS Lewis. The third is an author who wrote something claiming that some works attributed posthumously to Lewis by the first author were in fact not so. There are no other coroborating sources, and the author is dead so can't be asked. Yes, the timeline was published by Hooper so is a referenceable source whether it is genuine or not, but in this case Warner bros have done the same thing, and do have the benefit of the corroboration of the living author. The Narnia article also claims that most of those dates are only traceable from the separate timeline, whereas these are largely traceable from the books themselves. Sourcing here seems to be better. Sandpiper 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the difference. Narnia has three sources listed, all published books. The Harry Potter timeline uses the books by Rowling, the Warner Bros. timeline (corroborated with Rowling), and the Harry Potter Lexicon. The lexicon is a fan created encyclopedia. Again, who verifies that the information there is accurate. --Cyrus Andiron 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Warner Bros, who published it on their DVD editions of the films, claiming it to be approved by Rowling. As you can see if you read the article (or look at one of the DVDs). Michael Sanders 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but that furthers my point as well. All sources for this article go directly through Rowling. We're back at square one without any secondary sources. --Cyrus Andiron 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing in the rules preventing use of primary sources. For that matter, if this goes straight to Rowling - well, how can any article in wikipedia be written? Any referencing of the voyage of the Beagle, for example, would go straight to Charles Darwin. Michael Sanders 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add also that "accuracy confirmed by Rowling" is not the same as "written by Rowling". That is, Rowling's approval of the sources does not make them primary sources; on the contrary, I would say it makes them doubly reliable secondary sources. -- Black Falcon 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(BF got in first) Erm, I was going to say that this is a work of fiction, and if Rowling, as author says that black is white in her world, well, then it is. Lexicon is a secondary source in that it confirms the derived timeline directly on the basis of the books content. Lexicon do not claim Rowling told them, rather that they deduced the information. Later Rowling confirmed they were correct, or at least authorised a similar timeline. At least we do have the input of Rowling into this, unlike the narnia case where Lewis is dead and can't comment. Rowling writes detective novels, and is on record as saying she does not lie to her readers. With regard to the three sources on the Narnia article, the last one seems to be by someone arguing that the single source of the first two is suspect. Sandpiper 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment relative to the Narnia comparison and discussions above: I would also point out that there is also a precedent and fairly close similarity to the article Timeline of Arda which reflects the History of Middle Earth as told by J. R. R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Unfinished Tales, and the general The History of Middle-Earth which constitutes some twelve volumes of texts. The histories and Middle-Earth years were presented, albeit very much in-universe, and admittedly without regard to "real calendar years" as it were. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what position is being advanced by the article? If anyone could say, then maybe the article could be rewritten to avoid this. So far (this is the third debate), no one has explained what position is allegedly being advanced by a synthesis of sources. Sandpiper 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see that synthesis can be an argument for deletion of an entire article, in any event. It is a rule about content. If you think some of the content is a synthesis, then say what it is, and something can be done about it. Warner bros has published definitive dates eg when harry went to school. The dates have been agreed by the author. The book says eg Professor McGonagall started teaching 30 years ago on a certain page, therefore she started teaching in 1956. Is it being suggested that subtracting 30 from a current date is an impermissable synthesis? Sandpiper 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I'm concerned, synthesis is not a big issue. Adding and subtracting to arrive at dates is different than manipulating multiple texts to create a new point. I'll grant you the dates. I think the sticking point for this article is the fact that it has not been covered by notable, non trivial sources. Right now, most of the 163 sources are from the Harry Potter books themselves or other publications by Rowling. That is my biggest issue. And, as mentioned by Iridescenti, that is what separates it from the Narnian timeline. --Cyrus Andiron 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Narnia article states that the only source for the timeline is a copy given by the author to one Walter Hooper, who wrote it up. Thus it essentially derives from the word of the said Mr Hooper, which the article also says has been brought into question with regard to other material he claims was from Lewis, who was once his employer. This information has been published by Warner bros, checked by Rowling, and is also verifiable independantly to a significant extent from the works themselves. Sandpiper 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the Narnian timeline, despite the validity of Hooper sometimes being called into question, the dates have been used in a number of scholarly works on Narnia since (see the five books at the end of the article). Naturally, with the HP series not over yet, though, there is still time for its timeline to be incorporated into other print material. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First party sources are allowed to be used in the articles themselves, particularly articles regarding works of fiction. Would you like to specify how it uses in-universe perspective? Michael Sanders 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This article is not written from an in-universe perspective. An article written from an in-universe perspective would not contain statement such as: "The timeline itself contains flaws", "Rowling later gave further confirmation", "Rowling has specified", "According to Rowling", or any reference to anything that does not exist solely in the Harry Potter fictional universe.
  2. "Primary source" does not automatically equate with "unreliable" (I presume that's what you meant to imply by linking to WP:RS). In fact, per WP:RS, Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia: and primary sources are one of the three types. The only restriction on primary sources is that they should be used "with care".
  3. As my knowledge of the Harry Potter series is extremely limited, I will do no more than note that claim that all of the sources are primary was challenged in the DRV. -- Black Falcon 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history is that HP-Lexicon created a timeline based upon information contained in the books, and some additional statements by Rowling. Warner subsequently published another timeline without officially stating its source, but effectively endorsing its accuracy as the creators of the films. This timeline is included on DVDs of the films, if you play them in a computer. Lexicon claim that Warner used their timeline, and back this claim by stating that a 'mistake' in their timeline was reproduced exactly on the DVD. This claim is posted here [1]. That page also goes through the arguments used to determine dates. There are a number of other pages, including this [2], if you want to see a really big list of dates. Some dates are not from the books, but from separate statements by Rowling published on her website and (I understand) on authorised trading card games. It should also be noted that Rowling has recommended a few fansites to anyone interested in more information about her works, including HP-Lexicon. She said that she uses it herself to check facts, see her website comment here[3]. I make it therefore that HP-Lexicon is a good secondary source of information, being endorsed by the author herself. Warner is either a second primary source, or a secondary source, depending on how you interpret their information. Since the information is fact-checked by the author to conform to her series of books, I take it to be another reputable secondary source. Sandpiper 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's my belief that a secondary source should not have input from the author of the primary source. The entire point of a secondary sources is that it can offer analysis or information without being influenced by the suggestions or demands of the primary source. Secondary sources are meant to be analytical; a take on the primary source of information. --Cyrus Andiron 12:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that notability is definitely one of the main problems. Specifically: A notable topic that has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. Right now, there are not any independent published works that support the notability of the timeline. We have the books, the lexicon, Rowling's Timeline and the Warner Bros. timeline. All of these are related and come through one person: Rowling. There are no other published sources that could confirm, deny, or comment on any of the information in this article. I also have a problem with the word derived, which appears in the first sentence of the article. Basically, that means to to trace from a source or origin. To me that sounds like unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is stricly forbidden by OR. --Cyrus Andiron 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Comment: The Synthesis of Published Material claim above applies to "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Everyone seems to be leaving this last part out, and stating that Synthesis of information in general is somehow bad and forbidden. Everything in the Wikipedia is synthesis - information gathered and combined together from multiple sources. This is not the intent of the ban. The ban is on making an argument and advancing a position by synthesizing materials. The example is: We believe C. Source 1 says "A" and Source 2 says "B", and A and B together may imply C, therefore we have "C", QED. An absurd example: Mary bought some canned catfood at the local store, according to her grocer. Her neighbor said Mary's cat died last month. Therefore Mary must be eating catfood, because she cannot afford human food. It may be true as theories go, but it is disallowed as synthesizing a novel position that Mary eats cat food, based on circumstantial, not direct "evidence". That is what the Synthesis position on Original Research is all about. Nobody is attempting to advance a Position C here, so "Synthesis OR" arument does not apply. In addition, the question of the word "derived": As stated in the article, the derivation was done by the Lexicon and/or Warner Bros., not the wiki editors who assembled the article. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wonder how old Dumbledore is, you can find that in the article Albus Dumbledore, where his birthyear is given as 1845, with a source. SO why would you come and look for it in the "Dates in Harry Potter" article? If there is a decent source (like an interview with the author) for the supposed age of a major character, then it is failry logical that that info is added in the article about that subject, who is on his own notable. However, to compile (or reproduce) a list of such dates on its own is still rather useless. Fram 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of exactly when certain things happened compared to each other is important to the plot. The main comparison is between Harry's generation at school, and his parents generation. However, the principle villain was at the same school, interacting with roughly harry's grandparents generation. Keeping all this lot straight (who knew who) is a lot easier if you can see it in a timeline. This is a detective novel, though this sometimes seems to be overlooked. Something which greatly interests readers is sorting out the clues in the text left by Rowling. Rather than drawing up their own list, it is presented here. But the issue is really that after reading Dumbledore's dates in his article it is then possible to click the date link to this article, and obtain further information about dates, their derivation, who were contemporaries, etc. It is rather foolish to rewrite all this in every article. That is why we have links, so people can click one and see more detailed information on a particular topic. One specific reason for the existence of articles like this is that the information is relevant to many articles. Sandpiper 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the books, and fail to see how this timeline helps me in any way, or what info related to e.g. Dumbledores age should be included in the Dumbledore article which isn't there already. Rewriting this list in every article is a fine example of a strawman: this would indeed be foolish, as it would serve no purpose. I fail to see any use for this article in an encyclopedic and already rather thorough dissection of Harry Potter. It's available on the web and on DVD's for those interested: what is gained by repeating it here? The timeline is a useless piece of plot summary which hasn't received any critical comments from reliable sources, making the first half of the article lacking in reliable secondary sources establishing notability (for the timeline, obviously not for Harry Potter). Fram 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I fail to see any use for this article in an encyclopedic and already rather thorough dissection of Harry Potter. It's available on the web and on DVD's for those interested: what is gained by repeating it here? " That seems to be a pretty stupid point: what is the point of wikipedia, or, indeed, any encyclopaedia at all, by that logic? Why should we have an article on the second world war - there are plenty of thorough dissections out there, aren't there? A reader can go to library and read about quantum theory, can look in the newspapers to see how climate change is doing, can grab a biography of Kennedy - so why read a garbled version of any of those things here, where it will have been badly typed up and misunderstood by some kid/professor/whatever at a computer? The point of wikipedia is to be a thorough resource on everything, provided that it can be properly sourced and verified, and provided it is notable enough. This article is properly sourced and verified. It is an article on an extraordinarily successful and popular series of books, which is pretty integral to an understanding of the series, and to understanding how all the dates fit together. Michael Sanders 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how these arguments, several of which don't appear to be relevant to deletion, apply here. Michael Sanders 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also remind everyone that "The deletion process is really a discussion. Wikipedia has particular standards for deletion and editors explain why they believe certain rules apply. Some of those desiring deletion are not adequately explaining why they believe it fits criteria for deletion: see Always explain your reasoning..."Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. In addition, this article conforms to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion Michael Sanders 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sandpiper - I - and the others arguing delete - are neither anti-Harry Potter fanatics, nor ivory-tower intellectuals not wanting to see Wikipedia polluted with low culture (at least, I hope the others aren't). However, I believe that while an article about a work of fiction or major fictional character is generally acceptable, and an article about a particular object/concept of significance within that work of fiction can be acceptable (eg TIE fighter, Horcrux, Charn), there is a qualitative difference between these and this type of article; whilst the former are genuinely useful towards explaining concepts used within a culturally significant work which may be used in a wider context or in discussion of the work to people who may not have read/seen or may not remember the work, the latter is a self-referential type of article which pretty much by definition is not going to be of interest or use to people other than the most diehard fans. To use the example used elsewhere in this AfD, I can picture someone looking up Quantum Mechanics wanting to find out more about the subject; I can even picture someone looking up Blood purity having come across the term and wanting to know more about it; I cannot picture anyone outside the Harry Potter community looking up this article, and consequently feel it would be better suited to either a Harry Potter site or to Wikibooks. And (while I realise it ain't gonna happen), I would say the same about Narnian Timeline, Star Wars Timeline etc, and in any event your argument regarding the Narnia list above is just a very long way of saying WP:WAX. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: About claiming WP:WAX - The article Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, where WAX is located, is simply an essay suggestion, not in any way a policy or even a guideline. Quoting: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not a valid argument for deletion. You say only those who have read Harry Potter will be able to understand it. Leaving the questionable nature of that statement aside: how many people have read Harry Potter? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Ten million? More? Certainly, enough people have read it to make it a relevant article to wikipedia readers - more so than an article on quantum mechanics (that's populism for you). This article is "qualitatively useful" to those who wish to understand how the events in Rowling's novels, and the backstory she created for those novels, falls together. It conforms to wikipedia rules. It is intelligible to those who have read the novels (and, I would contend, those who haven't). It gives the background information about the issue. It is not 'self-referential', if by that you mean it quotes information verbatim from the books - it also uses information from the comic relief books, Rowling's interviews, her website, much of which is, or may be, hard for 'the average reader' (whom we all serve at wikipedia) to locate. The timeline and the information surrounding it both serve those purposes. As for having it here - why have anything here? But we do, because if we can source it and verify it and satisfy notability (all done here), we can control it, and ensure it remains encyclopaedic. That's why we write about history, or politics, or sciences, or books, or tv shows, or the hundreds of other things on wikipedia. To ensure that we are as thorough and as comprehensive as possible. Michael Sanders 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is notability satisfied? I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources discussing this timeline. Harry Potter is extremely notable, but that does not automatically make this timeline notable (and popularity among fans is not notability for Wikipedia). 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment My thoughts exactly, this discussion is not about Harry Potter, it's about the "derived" timeline that corresponds to it. Harry Potter is not up for deletion right now, but Dates in Harry Potter is. You have to consider them as separate entities. This timeline is not sourced by anything other than the primary sources that all go through Rowling. Therefore, it does not meet notabilty because there are not multiple non trivial sources. Also, if you're going to claim those as sources and cite dates then events, then you are just restating what can be found in the book. That seems like a plot summary to me, which would violate WP:NOT.--Cyrus Andiron 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. coverage of Harry Potter on wiki is not one article, but 300. We could perhaps theoretically put all that information onto one page, which would take half an hour to load, and be pretty useless. So instead, we split the topic into different articles. We try to do so in a sensible way, and one topic which comes up here and there is dating of events. The article was linked to loads of others, presumably these links have not been restored despite the article being restored? It is effectively a footnote to many other articles. It exists because a sensible encyclopedia would include it. I have to say, if I had to choose a dozen HP articles to delete, this would certainly not be one of them. I would regard it, for example, as more important to the topic of HP than the articles on the films. But this is an absurd comparison: wiki is not paper and we do not have to choose which part of the collected information to chop for lack of space.
Aside from the book, the other sources are not primary. They were not written by Rowling! You should not conflate sources that are "based in the book and checked for accuracy by the book's author" with "written by the author". They are secondary sources that are doubly reliable because the author (in addition to regular editors) checked the information for accuraccy. -- Black Falcon 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I've said this before. The entire point of having secondary sources is that they are not subject to the input of the original author. That is how analysis and criticism are created. If every secondary source was subjected to the opinion of the original author, then there would be no analysis of the source material. The information contained in these sources would be the exact same if Rowling had published it. She corroborated with them to write it. Therefore, this article still fails notabilty, as I said before, because there are not multiple non trivial sources that support it. This is elaborated in more detail above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you saying? if critic X says something about the work, and the author says 'yes, thats right', and researcher Y says something else, and the the author says 'thats right too, give me everything anyone has written about my work and I will confirm or deny it for you', then all these secondary sources become primary ones, and suddenly there are no secondary sources on a subject any more? So someone cirticises the invasion of Iraq, the whitehouse say 'Ok, I agree, you are right', and suddenly the fact of the invasion and that it was criticised ceases to be reportable? History is history and remains a record of what happened whatever happens next. Sandpiper 07:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Cyrus et al So the argument seems to come down to: 1. The timeline was synthesized, which is disallowed by WP:SYNTH: (not true - it was synthesized by OTHERS and the synthesis did not attempt to prove a point, which is a necessary condition for the synthesis ban). 2. It was not created by Rowling therefore it is not reliably sourced per WP:RS: (incorrect - it was produced by Warner Bros., the Producer and owner of the HP copyrights and trademarks). 3. It was shown to Rowling before publication for approval, therefore it is no longer notable: (Huh???) So non-creation by Rowling makes it synthesis, creation by others with non-approval by Rowling makes it unreliable, but creation by others with approval by Rowling makes it non-notable, therefore it is disallowed no matter how it came to be?. I do not think I have ever seen such a twisted and bizarre rational for an AFD. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: no, the argument is that half of the article is a plot summary (rewriting it so that it says "Rowling says that X is" instead of "X is" may superfluously remove the in-universe aspect, but doesn't change anything), and that the other half is a discussion of how that chronology was made, but that there are no secondary sources about the timeline to establish its notability. The timeline itself is the primary source for the discussion of the timeline (just like the books and interviews with Rowling are the primary source for the timeline itself), and there are no secondary (reliable, not fanmade) sources for the discussion of this timeline to indicate that it has any notability (unlike, of course, Harry Potter and the books and movies and so on, who are very notable). 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I find what you are saying something of a paradox. There are three sources here. The books by Rowling, the timeline published by warner, and the timeline allegedly copied by warner, which first appeared on Lexicon. I still make that Primary source Rowling, secondary source Lexicon which extracted and tabuleted info from the books as a timeline, but also extracted real world dates from the information. Tertiary source Warner, who re-published this timeline and thus confirmed it. Lexicon created the timeline by themselves. I repeat that Rowling has endorsed them as a source of information about HP and thus they are a good source for reference purposes. But in this case, the later publication by Warner of the identical information (including Lexicon's 'mistakes') completely conrfirmed their accuracy as a source in this specific case. Even if Warner's timeline being identical was purely coincidence, it still confirms the accuracy of Lexicon. The whole business also made the story quite interesting. Please note 'fanmade' does not mean anything. University professors and professional literary critics are fans too. In this case Lexicon has been conirmed twice over as a reliable source for this information. If you check, you will notice that policy on sourcing states that consideration of what constitutes a reliable source must take into account the nature of the subject concerned and the specific relevance of the source. Sandpiper 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true either. The books do not mention real-world dates, but they certainly have a chronology. Book 1 is Harrys first year at school..book 2 is Harry's second year, and so on. During the action we see flasbacks of one sort or another, where we learn about the main characters parents generation at school, and indeed Voldemort who might be around their grandparents generation. Quite often this information is released in a way that eg in book 5 we read about Harry's 5th year, and learn about what his parents did in 5th year. Many events are described relative to each other in a way which only requires the addition of one or two fixed dates, and then all the dates become fixed. As to reaction to the timeline, well no, of course not. It is not controversial, except here. It extracts information from the books, but no one disputes that this was done in a sensible way and has now been made official by the publishers. On the whole it is more important to appreciate that certain events happen in the same year, or one just after another, rather than the specific year, I agree. But this does not invalidate the usefulness of the timeline, which still shows in a clear way which events happen at the same time. As has already been pointed out, there are enough die-hard fans out there to have pre-ordered half a million copies of a book which will be freely available at knock-down prices in every major supermarket in the UK, never mind the bookshops, on the day of publication. So why do they pre-order their books for collection at midnight on the day of publication? Because this is the kind of subject which really does have vast numbers of people interested in core information about the series, which this is. Sandpiper 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Folken: You say: The books do not mention real-world dates. OK - well you must have forgotten about Sir Nick's deathday cake. "DIED 31st October, 1492". See ch. 8 of Chamber of Secrets , about half-way through, for reference. That anchor date, plus the earlier statement that it is the five-hundredth anniversary of Nick's death-day, places Halloween night of Year 2 in the series, when Harry was 12 years old, squarely on 31 October 1992, thus his birth on 31 July 1980, and so forth. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are two important real life dates mentioned by Rowling. One was from the Black family tree, which she donated for charity, and in which Draco Malfoy's birthdate is given as 1980. The very same Draco Malfoy, who is only two months older than Harry, according to JK Rowling's website. Which puts Harry's birthdate in 1980. The second one is the already mentioned date in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, where the ghost Nick celebrated his 500th deathday. The date of his death given in the book (chapter 8) as 1492, therefore the book takes place in 1992. Harry is 12 years old at that point, therefore this date, too, puts his birthyear in 1980. All the other dates given in the article are either from the Black family tree, for example Regulus Black's deathdate, or given in the books or by Rowling on her website, when it is for example stated, that this character is two years older than Harry and that one three years younger. No Original Research at all. Neville Longbottom 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are all proving my point: you have to closely look at the book to find a single date mentioned, which is a proof that only die-hard fans can notice this. One single date in more than 2000 pages certainly doesn't establish the notability of dates in HP...Besides, the article has only one single external, secondary source, a fansite (hence "only interesting for a small number of die-hard fans") Folken de Fanel 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folken, please stop assuming that you represent some sort of mass opinion, or vested interest: just because you failed to notice a pretty explicit date reference within the books, and the associated references to what happened such and such years ago, is not proof positive that everyone except 'die hard fans' noticed it. More to the point, the article is of sufficient notability for wikipedia because it is focused on a notable topic (i.e. Harry Potter). Michael Sanders 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, stop attacking me each time I don't agree with you. It's not because you can't find anything convincing to add to the debate, that you can bark at everyone that doesn't agree with you.
Besides, we are not talking about "harry potter", but "dates in harry potter", which is quite different. And Dates in HP aren't notable, because they are inexistent. One occurence among more than 2000 pages certainly doesn't make it "notable". And we have not enough different secondary sources which could justify its notability. Folken de Fanel 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Iridescenti: You must have the incorrect AFD here. The article in question, currently named Chronology of the Harry Potter stories has many dozens, if not hundreds, of links to other HP pages including Harry Potter, and similar numbers of external links to references. For all intents and purposes, every HP related article which has an in-universe date reference (eg: characters, storylines, major event descriptions, etc.) have dates that are linked back to this article, which acts as a date verification source. It is probably one of the most completely cross-referenced articles in the Wikipedia. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the most thoroughly sourced - I mean, yes, most of the sources refer to authorial work, or the dubious work of the Lexicon (a discussion for another day), but there are plenty of articles of the same narrow range of sources without that mitigating factor. Michael Sanders 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The What Links Here? page shows that the only mainspace pages that either link here or redirect in via Dates in Harry Potter are Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Cho Chang, Rubeus Hagrid and Minerva McGonagall - that's just a statement of fact, not a value judgement of any kind. Incidentally, this is technically a deletion discussion on Dates in Harry Potter and not Chronology of the Harry Potter stories - read the header at the top of the section and the AfD log - but I (and I assume everyone else here) am treating it as a nomination of the Chronology and not the empty-shell Dates article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edit history of this article was largely lost when it was deleted and restored. Can anyone with the authority please restore the rest of its considerably longer history? Sandpiper 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescenti - The AfD is for the Chronology of the Harry Potter stories, not the outdated Dates in Harry Potter redirection stub. The What Links Here tool is invalid, because removal bots removed the links when the article was first deleted. What happened here is that when the original Dates in Harry Potter article was first deleted, a couple of weeks back, vast numbers of articles within the HP Project suddenly had red-links back to the deleted page. Most of those annoying redlined links were dutifully taken down by well meaning editors and cleanup bots. Meanwhile the article was re-established due to a faulty AfD process, and then renamed due to complaints that it was "too crufty". This eliminated the long-term history of the article up for review, and makes it appear, in the What Links Here tool, that the article is non-notable because hardly anything links there anymore. We will have to tediously restore all those links - many many dozens of them - for the What Links Here tool to be correct in the sense of intent. Those of us who have been involved in the HP articles for more than the length of an AfD know that virtually EVERYTHING in the HP Project, which had in-universe dates in them, had linked to the Chronology / Dates page, and vice versa. I'll take it up with the HP project page to help re-establish the hundreds of Date links in the hundreds of HP articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They'd already be re-established: were it not for the fact that editors are generally chary about spending a lot of time on efforts they fear will be wasted after five days. Michael Sanders 13:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Fram a clean-up or removal bot? S/he is the editor who stripped out all the links within a few hours of the deletion of the article. Michael Sanders 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I was just about to ask you if you had time to re-establish date links. But I agree - why re-establish links that may go away again in a couple days. You just cannot win with deletionists thinking they are in control. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. There was a correct AfD, the result was delete, and I cleaned up all the redlinks this left behind (not removing any info, just removing the links). No need to call me or anyone "a deletionist who thinks he is in control". Anyway, you shouldn't link those dates to this article, but to the source used to establish that date: Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used in that way. Fram 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Fram - I was not talking specifically about you, and certainly not to you. You did a fine job of cleaning up the red-linked dates, even though the article was under appeal for re-instatement. I was talking to Michael about what appeared to be an effort to first delete all the links to an article, and then say the article should be deleted as non-notable because there were no links to it, which is a bizarre and twisted approach to accomplish the deed. That is exactly the sort of editors we have been dealing with in this particularly irrational and heated AfD. Again apologies - the "deletionist" remark was referring those who are really struggling to come up with fantastic new rationals for deletion - and the "delete because it is non-notable because there are no links to it because we deleted them" was just the latest in the series. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in Fram's defence, the article wasn't under appeal at that time - after I discovered how the original AfD had gone, I rewrote it to resolve the AfD complaints and reposted it. The appeal wasn't made until it was twice speedily deleted (which, the issue now having passed, I shall hold my silence about). However, it was slightly...hasty, and perhaps over-zealous, to remove all the links so quickly. If a deleted article had that many links, clearly the deletion will cause trouble; it's not a particularly good idea to exacerbate the problem, or indeed to wade in. As for the linking system, ideally, all 'in-universe' dates should be linked up to the article (otherwise, they end up being linked to the historical year articles, which causes a bleed between 'in-universe' and 'extra-universe'); important dates, I suppose, should be referenced within the articles themselves, as well. But nonetheless, there is a difference between using an article as a source, and using it as a convenient short-hand: if I write "Louis XVI was King of France" as "Louis XVI was King of France", I'm not using the article to source that he was King; merely to link up the title to the relevant article. The same is true here. Michael Sanders 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies and defence accepted ;-) I don't think it is over-zealous to delete all links after an AfD has closed as a delete (one could just as well argue that reintroducing all those links again during the next AfD is over-zealous), but that is not really important now. 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are plenty of valid arguments for keeping it - see above - but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't one of them. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well if a cat-hater dog-lover put up Cat for AfD, then one of the primary arguments against deletion would be that the AfD proposal itself is biased, and that articles for Dog, Mouse, Rat, Monkey, Racoon, etc etc etc exist as a precedent and a model, and that the Cat AfD is absurd. To your point, may I remind you that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, and I quote: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors.. "Well, I happen to strongly disagree with that essay, therefore it is invalid". That reflects the opinion of this author. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you happen to disagree with that essay, and therefor it is invalid? Strange reasoning there... Fram 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point. The opinions of the authors of the essay are not policies or guidelines. I meant to place the remark in quotes, as if it was a valid argument - which I have now. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, T-dot is right - the very nature of an "essay" is an expression of opinion - and whilst the reputation and authority of the writer affects the degree to which the essay is taken as authoritative, it is still, at the end of the day, an essay, a formulation of beliefs and opinions which cannot be taken as binding - in this case, someone could write a wiki-essay saying "Precedent is very important in wikipedia. If one article is judged to be tolerable by policy, editors feel ethically obliged to tolerate other articles allowed by the same decisions...", so what would make either more authoritative? Michael Sanders 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a plot summary, and "notability" isn't defined by the number of readers, but by the reactions to this particular issue, and a notable subject must have "multiple" sources. There's only one secondary source for this...Folken de Fanel 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows and accepts a certain degree of plot-summary, in order to give a good accounting of a notable subject, i.e. Harry Potter. Michael Sanders 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it can hardly be argued that without this article, Wikipedia would not have a good accounting of this notable subject. This article is superfluous and goes beyond what is necessary to understand the Harry Potter articles. Fram 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without this article, Wikipedia would suffer a distinct drop in its accounting of the subject. For the reasons outlined above by everyone favouring 'keep'. Michael Sanders 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I think we are on the whole repeating ourselves, However...The noteability of this particular article has to be judged for what it is: which is one small but distinct part of the whole coverage of HP. It now has links restored to about 70 other articles (not including talk etc). It exists because the issue of dating is important to all of them. Not to mention of interest to a reader seeking to understand how the books are structured. People are dismissing this as a 'plot summary', but actually it is more an 'authors tool' which gives us a behind the scenes look at the books. From the point of view of understanding the books, it is a lot more useful than a number of others. Sandpiper 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are definitely repeating ourselves, which is why I stopped responding a couple of days ago. This discussion is completely out of hand. It would be ridiculous to expect anyone new to the discussion to read every opinion before commenting. As a result, there is rampant redundancy in most of the arguments. All that is left to do is let the closing admin sort it out. I disagree with every point you just laid forward for keeping the article and my objections are explained at length above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not out of hand: the case is simply that both sides hold strong views, and that there is *no consensus* as to whether to delete or not delete. Michael Sanders 08:23, 19 April 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.
More