The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gellert Grindelwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The Potter cruft never seems to stop. This is, yet again, a character with some importance to one book of the series and a series of asides in other books, but still lacking multiple, non-trivial works from other independent sources. This character has no importance or notability outside of the Harry Potter universe, and negligible notability within it. This is why the Internet has ample space for fan sites. Natalie 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep!!! or at least merge. He is a significant character, even though his role is minor. He plays a huge part into the insight into Albus Dubledore's life and also the path of the desired Elder Wand. It deffinately needs to be kept.81.104.147.204 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he has become a majorly important character in HP:DH! And since this book is likely to become the biggest best seller like ever, the audience who will look for such an article will most likely be large. And therefore it should have a place in wikipedia. Plus also the blatant WW2 links!
• Keep due to huge relevance in book seven.— 68.249.2.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep because it has relevance to the seventh book. 71.246.103.78 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — 71.246.103.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, insufficient real-world impact. --Eyrian 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the fact that he's a major part of a world-impacting series prove that the character has some kind of impact? I mean, what real-world impact does Beauxbatons have? Yet there's an article on that, and rightfully so. →evin290 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It is a little too soon to judge on notability of characters in a book released just 3 days ago. I would suggest a moratorium of at least a week or two on AfDs for Harry Potter related articles, 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree - we write articles after people and things become notable, not before. Otherwise, why do we delete all those articles written by high school rappers and 12 year olds that still think they are going to be famous ballerinas? Natalie 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. Maybe a bit less minor than some others, but still minor. Quackdave 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (altered as I hadn't realised the second more appropriate article existed at the time of first comment Quackdave 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge per my comments in Rufus and Gabriella afd's below.--JForget 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Too big to merge. Abeg92contribs 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, per WP:FICT. That list has major problems, but this is probably the best solution for now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to the location it was originally at. The character is reasonably important enough to cover on that page. I don't feel there will be enough further information to change that, unless somebody publishes a Albus Dumbledore series for his war years. FrozenPurpleCube 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to the harry potter wiki. Yet another character with no coverage from independent (real world) sources Corpx 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As stated above, this article is too big to merge. Additionally, this character has importance to the Harry Potter series and rightfully deserves its own article. While it is easy to merge the articles for smaller or less important characters into a single article, this character features heavily into the plot of the finial novel and should be given the same treatment as other secondary characters who have their own articles. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper -Inventm 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's too big because it's been bloated with plot summary and speculation. While "Wikipedia is not paper" is a claim Jimbo made in passing on the mailing list years ago, while "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" has been in one of Wikipedia's core policies for ages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:PAPER is clearly there on WP:NOT and has been for a while. It's not just a single comment by Jimbo. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that WP:PAPER is not "official" but it is still a very, very valid point. While I do believe that the article is in need of work, I can see a time when the bloatedness you speak of will be corrected and replaced by references to reviews, analysis, and other media sources mostly related to the connection between this Grindewald character and Hitler. As the book has been available (officially) for less than 72 hours, I believe that it will be expanded and refined in the coming days as more "credible" sources for its contents develop. I thus stick with my suggestion to Keep or, otherwise, merged into a page with higher significance than Minor Harry Potter characters. -Inventm 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP is not paper, but neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information Corpx 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to that I only refer you to the rule that "has always been" -Inventm 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAR requires some sort of argument why the rules are bad. "I want my Harry Potter fansite here" isn't very convincing as a reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---I didn't hear anyone cite that as a reason. JNF Tveit 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone give another reason for an in-universe plot summary dump mixed liberally with speculation? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have no connection to this article: I have never edited it, I run no Harry Potter fansite, nor have I ever even contributed to one. This character is important enough, however to warrant its own article. Though I do not personally like the show or character Lizzie McGuire, and care even less about what the actress who plays her has to say about how hard she "developed" the role, I believe that Lizzie McGuire deserves an article as there is enough information to justify one. Following such, there is enough information to keep the article on Grinelwald even barring so- called "media" accounts or lack thereof (and I personally do not consider the sources from which the Lizzie McGuire information was attained from to truly be considered the media). Even if it is decided that there is not enough of this "credible" information to keep the article, it would be ludicrous to group this character amongst other "minor" characters as he, while not a primary character, is at least a secondary one and not to be placed with other characters who have little to no impact on the plot of the series. -Inventm 03:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there isn't any information here at all. You've conflated "important to the Harry Potter" with "a subject of commentary in the real world". The reason notability standards, which by any measure this completely fails, exist is so that we can write an article on whatever subject without resorting to original research. This is the plot of Deathly Hallows cut down, folded, spindled, and mutilated into a chunk of detailed plot summary, with no insight, interpretation, or commentary other than original research.

It is not part of Wikipedia's mission to tell the story of every fictional character, or every "main" fictional character. If you want the story of Gellert Grindelwald, your local bookstore would be happy to sell you a copy of Deathly Hallows. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia should be able to tell me the story of Gellert Grindelwald without me going to my local bookstore. -Inventm 04:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Rowling would appreciate that. :P

There are a number of reasons we don't do that, chief among them copyright reasons and the fact that raw source material isn't part of Wikipedia's mission. (That's what WikiSource is for.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand that and am not by any means saying that we post this article so as to allow people to get around copyright laws, nor am I saying that we should post exact text here; this article should not act as a "shortcut" or a "cheat," but rather as source of knowledge and information for fans and non-fans alike (For the record, I greatly respect Mrs. Rowling). Often, as a frequent user of Wikipedia, I research fictional characters, places, or events from a wide variety of sources so as to gain a greater understanding of the works they originate from as a whole or merely for a better idea of that singular part. In today's modern pop culture soaked climate, too, it is often necessary to research individual references to other works from movies, TV, and books in order to understand the artist's intent and reason for placing such a reference. Wikipedia is a great tool for this purpose in this modern age. While some may strive for Wikipedia to be the Encyclopedia Britannica for the 21st Century, I feel it is important to gain perspective and realize that there are needs that a traditional encyclopedia does not meet, and Wikipedia was created to fill these gaps. Deleting pages related to fictional characters because they are not "notable" in the "real world" would go completely against this purpose. -Inventm 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to do something that we just don't do here. That are projects that do this, for both fiction in general and Harry Potter in particular. But this isn't that project. Cross-referencing every single fictional character, describing their role in each story, isn't part of Wikipedia's mission. Some links on this subject that you may find useful are WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand and respect your opinion, but it is not one I share and, again, I must evoke WP:IAR.

No matter what you think of keeping the article, you must admit that he is at least not a "minor" character if you have indeed read the novel. -Inventm 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the novel and I think his character is relatively minor and whilst he does deserve an explanation, it should be as a section in another article. There is no need for an article - and particularly not one of this length. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To invoke WP:IAR, you have to make some sort of argument that this encyclopedia better serves its stated goals by ignoring a rule. It's not leave to just ignore Wikipedia's goal of being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit which bases its content on references to reliable sources.

You keep saying and saying that this is a major character, and never explain how or why or who cares. I've read Deathly Hallows. That's how I noticed that Grindelwald doesn't have a single line of dialogue. He's not a major character by any measure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once said he was a "major" character, but merely more important to the plot of the final novel and, indeed, series as a whole, than characters such as "Gaspard Shingleton," "Tom," "Bridget Wenlock," "Amy Benson," or any of the other characters in Minor Harry Potter characters. (By the way, he does have a few lines of dialogue in Chapter 23) -Inventm 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We ought to remember that, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it enables articles for topics which wouldn't normally get print space in a regular encyclopedia. Much is known about Gellert Grindelwald, and he plays a fairly important role in the Harry Potter series. It is ridiculous to assert that all article topics must exist in "non-trivial" "independent sources" (if this were followed, there would be no page for such "trivial" characters as Lizzie McGuire ). JNF Tveit 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it ridiculous to assert that all article topics must exist in non trivial independent sources. I'm pretty sure that one of our most important policies says exactly that. Natalie 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give me a non trivial independent source for Lizzie McGuire? If so, one can be given certainly for Gellert Grindelwald. If not, maybe we should be trying to delete that page as well. I feel editors should be impartial, and not follow some sort of vendetta in adding or deleting articles. To paraphrase you, this partial editing cruft needs to stop. JNF Tveit 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then nominate it for deletion. Natalie 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no shortage of Hilary Duff commenting on her conception of the character, her role in developing Lizzie and how she acted playing as Lizzie, plus a decent amount of info on creating the character and a smattering of critical reception. (30 seconds of looking found this.) That's not a very good article, but it could become one. On the other hand, there is no commentary outside of fansites on this character, and nothing other than predictions that someday such commentary might materialize. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How absurd. Given time, Gellert Grindelwald could easily become as non-trivial as you see Lizzie McGuire by these standards. JNF Tveit 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And after that happens, we'll have an article on him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't really get how you can argue that Grindewald isn't notable. He's in the HARRY POTTER books for Christ's sake. Maybe you haven't noticed but HP is pretty notable. shijeru 21:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because the Harry Potter books are notable does not mean that every minor character in them is notable enough to warrent their own article. Neitherday 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, per WP:FICT. The profusion of fiction related subpages is damaging to the credibility of the encyclopedia among non fans. Espresso Addict 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, this character should not be considered a "minor" character. Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia is primarily a source of knowledge on a vast number of subjects, a larger variety than would ever be possible with a traditional encyclopedia. This is one of the most important differences between wikipedia and all other sources of knowledge. -Inventm 03:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  He's a character in the backstory of one of the main characters. He has no dialogue and is described only in backstory dumps. That's a minor character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge. Try thinking about it's notability outside the Harry Potter universe... because that's the criteria we should be basing this on. Is this a notable Harry Potter character in the mainstream media? I would think not. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As this book was published the day before yesterday, of course you would think not. You can't base your argument on something so indefinable as "the mainstream media" and what it has to say about an issue. That's hardly impartial. You can't single out an article to the exclusion of all others that don't follow this policy to its most subtle point. JNF Tveit 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, who other than the book or fansites has ever seen fit to comment on this character? This article isn't being "singled out"; there's a good dozen original-research- and plot-summary-heavy HP articles on AFD now, and such articles get kicked to AFD or merged all the time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Formerly, Grindelwald had been in the Minor Dark Wizards from Harry Potter article, but the article has grown a lot since the book was first released a few days ago. The article needs time to grow and improve due to the very recent release of the book. If the article still looks bad with no chance for improvement in six months or so, it can be re-nominated then. AgentPeppermint 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to minor characters list. I personally don't think Wikipedia should have articles to every Potter character. Especially ones that have a big role in only one book. RobJ1981 05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't wiki set up to allow articles to evolve? Instead, it seems a select few have been deciding that articles need to be killed off as fast as possible instead of given a chance to evolve into good articles. They're going to come back, and it might be better to have the old portions there to build off, instead of razing each article to the ground. Just my two cents.Ravenmasterq 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Evolve into what? Right now, all of the content here is speculative or interpretive, with an exceedingly detailed plot summary. Nobody has yet suggested any reliable sources we can use to write this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deathly Hallows does a good job of establishing Grindelwald's notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Deathly Hallows can't establish Grindelwald's notability. We need reliable secondary sources for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, character plays imporant role in final book. --musicpvm 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough coverage from [1] can also be added. And yes, I consider it a secondary source, because wikipedia is not paper. Recurring dreams 08:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOT#PAPER doesn't enter into it. That page doesn't have any content. It's just the plot summary summarized somewhere else. How on are we going to write an article based on that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Give the article a little time to mature. Raya 85 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the character is extremely important; a lot shorter character-related articles exist that are less relevant than Grindelwald is. →evin290 09:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If we're going to delete this, then we must embark on a mass deletion campaign including Albus Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall, Ron Weasley, and Lord Voldemort. Auror 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that real people have written things about those characters, whether to analyze the character, critique it, or compare it to actual real people. No one has written anything about Gellert Grindelwald except JK Rowling and a bunch of fanboys. Natalie 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody notable has written about him yet. The book was released only a few days ago. There hasn't been any time for notable writings about him to get published. AgentPeppermint 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Last night I went to a show and the opening band was very talented. They might become notable someday. I guess I should make an article about them now, before they're notable, because in a little while it might happen. Natalie 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And at what point does something become legitimate or notable enough to have its own article? I'm interested in knowing the rule of thumb you use to determine an article's notability and see how well this can be applied to cull non-conforming articles. Certainly Grindelwald has been a not insignificant point of discussion for years now, with contemplation of his defeat date (1945) to Hitler. The 7th book answered these long-standing debates of thousands of people. Besides, your user page bluntly states, "My current pet peeve is Harry Potter cruft." Why do I get the feeling that you're not simply looking our for the best interests of Wikipedia? Auror 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It becomes notable enough at the precise moment that an independent, reliable source discusses the article subject. This has not happened. The subject is not notable. Appealing to "yet" is speculation, and thus inappropriate. --Eyrian 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Independent, reliable" sources have discussed the article subject. In many reviews of the novel, journalists have connected Gindelwald to Hitler and Nazi Germany. I added one such source to the article just now. JNF Tveit 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Auror, read our notability policy, which explains exactly when the subject of an article becomes acceptable for a Wikipedia article. That would be the rule of thumb I'm using to cull articles. If Grindelwald has been a subject of real world discussion or analysis somewhere, please show it. And yes, I added that to my userpage after I found five badly written, completely in-universe articles about minor background characters no one cares about in about twenty minutes. I'm actually quite a fan of the series, but the level of detail expected by some of the more hyper fans is ludicrous. Natalie 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are trivial mentions. Per WP:NOTE, an article must be about the subject in question mention the subject significantly. Corpx 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge How major a character is in a story is not measured by how much of an historical figure the other characters view them as, but simply by how significant a part they are in the story itself. By that measure, Xenophilius Lovegood running the Quibbler and explaining the Hallows is far more important than Grindelwald, yet Xenophilius comes nowhere close to having his own article. Neitherday 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Xenophilius does have an entire chapter named after him. Why don't you start his article? AgentPeppermint 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be inappropriate. Articles require real-world impact. Neither of those characters have it. The major ones do. --Eyrian 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This may be a weird sort of argument but I searched for this article, confident that it would exist. On the assumption that I'm not unique, maybe the character DOES have enough real world impact to make an article viable. That said, the article needs a lot of improvement... Helen-Eva 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A major character in the seventh book. --Jannex 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have to agree Helen and Jannex. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major character in the world's best selling book. Golfcam 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Large character in book 7, much better on own page rather than "minor dark wizards" Skhatri2005 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This character is critical to the Harry Potter series, as revealed in the 7th book. The notability of the series themselves undoubtedly transfers to Grindelwald, and many users have already searched for this character, assuming a page devoted to him already exists. 82.123.145.29 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wonder what book others are reading, since Grindelwald only appears in backstory exposition. That's hardly "major" in any sense of the word. Claiming he's "major" isn't enough. Where are the non-trivial, independent sources? The popularity of the Harry Potter books is irrelevant and the argument is applicable to every aspect of the plot. We're not going to make articles on Trace (Harry Potter) or Malfoy Manor. ' 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh. You sure? --Eyrian 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The purpose of Grindelwald's character is not only as a minor character in backstory exposition, as anyone who understands the course of the series can tell you. His character affected Dumbledore greatly, and affected Harry Potter through Dumbledore, as well as having affected the eponymous Deathly Hallows, which are important enough to have the final book of the series named after them. JNF Tveit 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I say, again: if he is such an amazingly important character, where are the sources? No, your opinion and personal interpretation don't count. ' 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grindelwald may be in the backstory, but his actions are central to everything and for that he has notability. For that I say Keep. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I say, again: you expect too much if you expect there to be many "sources" in the 3 days since official publication. The lack of sources in such a new subject does not render it unnotable. If there were to be a terrorist attack at 3PM and yet it wasn't mentioned in "non-trivial sources" until 3:05PM, it does not mean that the attack was not notable from 3PM-3:04PM.JNF Tveit 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is quite wrong, and in a way that perfectly illustrates why we have notability rules. It exists to ensure that articles are verifiable. Until such a hypothetical attack was reported on in reliable sources, it wouldn't be verifiable, and wouldn't be put on Wikipedia. Until this subject has reliable sources, it must not be here (on its own), either. --Eyrian 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You argument was already used and rebutted. "Last night I went to a show and the opening band was very talented. They might become notable someday. I guess I should make an article about them now, before they're notable, because in a little while it might happen." We don't keep articles on the basis that somebody might, someday, make note of poor Gellert Grindelwald. Your terrorist attack example isn't terribly relevant, since we wouldn't know about it until reliable sources reported on it. Can you imagine the leeway people would have if they were able to claim "Oh, don't worry, it's happening. You have my word on this!"? ' 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is why some Wikipedia policy must be changed per WP:IAR, in order that such misinterpretation of original intent may not occur any further. Just because there don't exist as many secondary sources as Lizzie McGuire may have does not render something unverifiable. Just because the argument was rebutted doesn't make it illogical (the rebuttal was nonnotable). Are we forgetting that primary sources can exist? "We wouldn't know about it"- Just because it isn't yet notable in the mainstream media does not make it nonnotable on Wikipedia, which is not mainstream media. We're not keeping this article on the basis that he might one day be notable, this is only one reason to keep it. -JNF Tveit 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Other articles are irrelevant. Primarily sources are irrelevant for notability. Reliable secondary sources are a necessary and sufficient criterion. Without these, the article subject is not notable. This is the only thing that matters. Not "perhaps in the future". Right now. Unless these sources exist at this present moment, and you can cite them, the subject is nonnotable and doesn't belong. --Eyrian 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just conducted searches on the major search engines, Google, Yahoo, and Live. In the three days since the book came out, I have found well over a hundred sources. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's also keep in mind that a number of articles link to this one. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's because the article is linked to in a template used in a hundred articles. ' 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well over a hundred? That contain substantial coverage about Gellert Grindelwald? By all means, add them to the article. --Eyrian 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is a tribute to Grindelwald's notability that he has so many ardent defenders here, although this is not a popularity contest. The people who say Keep are the only ones with any logical arguments on this page. -JNF Tveit 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly the worst argument I've seen. People argue somewhat about a fictional character, therefore he's notable? You have yet to actually find real sources. Hilarious how the people you agree with are the only "logical" ones. No bias there, certainly. ' 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't say he was notable because the people argue for him. I meant that Wikipedia should be more of a democracy than you tyrants are trying to make it. If many people feel there should be an article, then why not, barring anything patently absurd. And I have found real sources, I added one to the article last night. Your argument here is fallacious. Your attack is without merit, since my support for them does not taint or affect in any way the reason behind what they say. -JNF Tveit 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We're here to debate the inclusion of this article into Wikipedia, not what you think Wikipedia should be. All the flowery language (or accusations of tyranny) in the world is not going to change that. Nor is it going to change that you've yet to find a independent source about Grindelwald. ' 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a democracy. --Eyrian 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not by vote, but your own linked page states "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion" -JNF Tveit 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct. Discussion, where the outcome is determined by editors' arguments with reference to the principles of the encyclopedia, standing policy, and guidelines (in that order). The keep votes do not address any policy or core tenet, other than perhaps WP:IAR, which absolutely cannot be interpreted by itself. --Eyrian 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the character were insignificant in reality, then you would have almost universal votes for merger or deletion. However, this has obviously not been the case. Doing a simple search brings up hundreds of hits with in-depth discussion of Grindelwald. Yet, these are all discounted as they are too fan-oriented. I'm at a loss as to what source is and isn't acceptable. We've already shown that Grindelwald is widely known and generally agreed as an important character in this book, and individuals have been discussing him for years longer. If we're going to have articles on characters of equal importance (i.e. Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy) then Grindelwald deserves his fair shot as a singular article as well. Don't pull the "othercrapexists" card. If this tenet was legit, then 80% of the information on LotR and other fictional stories ought to be yanked. Auror 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, really. A bunch of nerds screaming very loudly does not mean what they like is notable. Neither does "othercrapexists" become invalid because you state so. We're talking about this article. Referring to the crappiness of other articles indicates nothing but your lack of actual arguments to keep this article. ' 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And name-calling does nothing to uphold your legitimacy, either. Surely, I need not redirect you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Your personal standards of notability clearly do not conform to Wikipedia's notability standards and more of a self-defined and fluctuating idea in your case. What will happen if an article for Gellert Grindelwald is preserved? Certainly no cornerstone of Wikipedia will be destroyed, unless you consider a crisp and clean presentation of a highly-important character is an erosion of the encyclopedic content. Auror 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Care to actually address my point? Do you have an argument beyond "But they have bad articles, too!"? "It does no harm" isn't particularly convincing, either. ' 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I failed to see any crux to your argument. Can you help me and point it out? Auror 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again: "Do you have an argument beyond "But they have bad articles, too!"?" Either you comprehend it or you don't. ' 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Insignificance has no meaning here. Notability is all that matters. Please see above. If you're at a loss for sources, please see WP:RS and WP:NOTE. --Eyrian 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the equal-enforcement of these principles to all other articles concerning fictional individuals? Auror 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than free to nominate them yourself. We're humans. We can't do everything at once. ' 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely. Do we not take into any account precedent? And, no one has yet shown satisfactorily that this article is non-notable. We've cited many articles already, in the brief time since publication, that have made Grindelwald notable. -JNF Tveit 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Name these sources. Reliable sources that substantially cover Grindelwald. Show them to me, please. And no, precedent is given considerably less weight on WP than in places such as the legal system. Inconsistency is a problem, but it is not fixed by letting other articles stay broken. Fix the others.--Eyrian 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither is inconsistency fixed with editors going after only Harry Potter articles. I think it hardly the freshness of the subject alone which results in a disproportionate number of literary AfD articles being in the HP universe. -JNF Tveit 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason that there are a disproportionate number of Harry Potter AfDs at the moment is because article creation spiked for the obvious reason, particularly by users that don't understand Wiki policies. The contributions should most certainly be kept, but merged into a central place. --Eyrian 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think most would agree Lucius Malfoy deserves his own article, however I'm not sure Cornelius Fudge should have his own (that article also seems to be almost entirely plot-dump). Regardless, both Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy both feature more heavily in the books and are more discussed outside of them than Grindelwald. Grindelwald's notoriety within the fictional wizarding world does not make him a major character in the books, where he is for the most part simply backstory. Neither does being notable within the fictional wizarding world make him notable in the real world (which is what is required for inclusion in Wikipedia). Neitherday 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither Cornelius Fudge nor Lucius Malfoy contain any links or sources whatsoever that corroborate their notability or importance. I'm waiting for their deletion tag so that notability standard enforcement will be treated in a universal and even manner. Auror 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Go for it. It's a wiki world. --Eyrian 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it best that the notability policy's most strident defender lead by example. Auror 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An excellent point. I've added an article from the National Review discussing Fudge's similarities to Gordon Brown. --Eyrian 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• But of course, this is from a publication dealing in politics, the natural sycophant populace of Cornelius Fudge. A fan publication source does not abide by notability standards. Auror 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends on the nature of the fansite. If it's a self-published site without editorial control? Well, yes, I'm afraid. --Eyrian 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Good. I'm glad you understand the Fudge link does not follow standards. Auror 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Your Fudge link is to a small editorial column that hardly serves as non-trivial sourcing. A 12 year old on Myspace could do better than that editorial. This is the heart of the matter- how non-trivial is "non-trivial"?

• It's an editorial column from a national publication. It is edited, and in wide circulation. I understand that you are frustrated, but please don't troll. --Eyrian 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article refers to the "just released film of Book Seven." This is the kind of factually erroneous articles we should be sourcing? -JNF Tveit 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This tangent has gotten quite a bit off topic. The quality of the references for the Fudge article doesn't really have much to do with this deletion review for Grindelwald. It would be better to hash it out on the Fudge talk page if you really have a problem with it. Neitherday 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If this article is deleted for lacking nobility then I'm afraid a significant number of articles would have to go with it. Grindelwald is a significant character in the Harry Potter series, and nowhere else, true, but so is other mind-numbingly irrelevant things you and I wouldn't care about, like the Pokedex. - Throw 21:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Almost all harry potter fans would now want to look up this character to know more background information. although i agree that there is room for improvement. — 70.164.66.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep or Merge into an article other than Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. He's not "minor". However, it seems that such an article will never exist because almost all of the known Dark wizards seem to be Death Eaters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capefeather (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 July 2007.

• Strong MergeI am a huge Harry Potter fan, but this has gone way too far! I agree that he did play a big part in the book, but this topic doesn't deserve its own article. If anyone hasn't noticed, Wikipedia is turning into the Harry Potter Wiki. I also think that if people want to know more about Gellert, you would still be able to find a lot of info about it if we merged it with Minor characters in Harry Potter. I think this whole situation of Harry Potter articles has gone out of hand and it should be stopped. 71.244.100.139 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — 71.244.100.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep With 72 million copies sold in one weekend worldwide, any small character in the book is more important than the thousands on anime character articles that seem to be everywhere in Wikipedia. Deletionists never seem to ask for their deletion. Just the sheer weight of numbers makes it worth keeping this article --- Safemariner 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Number of copies sold don't give automatic notability to every trivial aspect of the book. In order to be notable, the character must receive "significant coverage" from independent real world sources (WP:N) Corpx 06:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep major character. Needs to be kept, and not even merged. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep major character. Needs to be kept, and not even merged. He has relevance to the 7th book and is mentioned in brief in the first. -- [[User:hangman005|

• Minor characters can (and often do) have relevance to the plots of the books that contain them. Neitherday 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters Irishjp 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters - although of reasonable importance to the plotline of Book 7, he has little significance outside it. Two to three paragraphs is enough to cover this character's important points. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Once the speculative part of it is removed, there is little to say about him. Marc Shepherd 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I search for an article on Wikipedia, it is because I want to know more about that subject. If I had just search for Grindelwald and not found an article, Wikipedia would have failed its purpose. If I'm searching for it, its notable enough to have an article. shijeru 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If Gellert Grindelwald is merged into Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter or Minor Harry Potter characters, "Gellert Grindelwald" would most likely be set up as a redirect to his section of the relevant article and you would still be able to find information on Gellert Grindelwald looking him up. Neitherday 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This character's relevance to the Harry Potter universe is undeniable; Grindelwald was a minor character only until Book 7 was released. His direct impact on more significant characters is critical to the narrative, unlike most of the characters in the page Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. vedantm 04:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is Wikipedia, not Harry Potterpedia. Article subjects have to have significance to the real world, not just the books. Natalie 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter, along with the vast majority of articles created post-Deathly Hallows. Stringing out what are single sentences about characters or just a fleeting mention in the books to an article is mad - see Victoire Weasley or Teddy Lupin for more of the same liberally treacle coated original research. As long as redirects are maintained, merging is the best optionRHB - Talk 12:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an appropriate "list of character..." page. All of these keep arguments are boil down to WP:ILIKEITs. I like HP as well, but the simple fact is that this character does not meet the fictional character guidelines. Same rationale for the Scrimgeour merge. Tarc 12:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think he's "minor" though. Perhaps we could change Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter to "Dark wizards in Harry Potter", have a section on Voldemort (with link to his article) and another on Grindelwald, and put the others under "Minor Dark wizards" or "Death Eaters"?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capefeather (talk • contribs) 14:14, 26 July 2007.

lol I never thought I'd forget to sign stuff. --Capefeather 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter The character is certainly important to the plot of the seventh book, but a section in Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter would cover the character sufficiently. 70.111.219.27 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was my comment. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Clamster 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Allow the article to expand people. The book's only been out for less than a week! Give it some damn time to turn into something worthy of Wiki. Stop trying to kill new articles just because the article isn't up to FA standard yet! Ixistant 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Time for what, Harry Potter 8: the Gellert Grindelwald Saga to be released? Nothing short of that is going to make a character with very little face time into a noteworthy character. Tarc 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I got to the page because I wanted more info on the character. This is the best place to find things like that and I'm glad it was here
• No consensus, give it a few months. The world will not end tomorrow. --Random832 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep articles on the basis that they may be notable later on. You are aware that the essay you link to suggests against immediately making articles on new stuff, yes? ' 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to a Harry Potter wiki. He's really a nonnotable character; any information can be handled elsewhere. Atropos 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - too bad if you think Potter is overhyped (I do); this is a major character in the Potter universe. --Leifern 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and merge to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. For a character that is only mentioned, but never appears in any of the seven books, he does not deserve his own article. --Farix (Talk) 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Grindelwald is as important to the Harry Potter world as Boba Fett is to the Star Wars Universe, and I don't see any of the holier-than-thou Wikipedians complaining about the notability of Boba Fett or the "Star Wars cult." Bcarlson33 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Boba Fett actually appears in 4 of the 6 Star Wars movies, having a significant role in at least one of them, and in several comic books and novels. Fett has also received critical commentary from a number of third-party sources and numerous cultural references. Gellert Grindelwald is merely mentioned in the books. So your comparison is apple and oranges. --Farix (Talk) 15:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most "significant" things Boba Fett does in the Star Wars series: he watches his father get decapitated, he tries to shoot Chewbacca but is stopped by Vader; he gets eaten. Grindelwald, on the other hand, is a pretty big link in the (admittedly large) chain of events and people that figure in the struggle between Harry and Voldemort, which is the crux of the entire seven-book series. As for "critical commentary" - Boba Fett has been around for 26 years. Grindelwald has, for all intents and purposes, been around for six days. You were saying about apples and oranges? Best, Bcarlson33 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the one who brought up the Boba Fett comparison, Farix was explaining why Boba Fett is not a good comparison to Grindelwald. and why that s. By your own words now, the comparison is apples and orange. Neitherday 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I have phrased my argument inelegantly. My point is not that Grindelwald is the Boba Fett of the Harry Potter universe; it's that Grindelwald is at least as important to the Potter universe as Boba Fett is in the Star Wars universe. The comparisons I made above support that argument. Best, Bcarlson33 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But that doesn't matter at all. What matters is real-world relevance. --Eyrian 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't remember seeing "must be more notable than Boba Fett in the real world" as a Wikipedia policy. But apparently I still have not explained my argument well. Grindelwald is an important character in a notable series of children's books. Boba Fett is a minor character in the six Star Wars films - yes, people have written Fett comic books and nerds dress up as him from time to time, but purely in terms of the films, he is not an important character. He is barely relevant to the plot in any of the movies. An argument could easily be made that the character of Boba Fett - as he appears in the Star Wars films - is not notable enough to warrant his own article. Yet not only does Boba Fett have his own article, but so do Ki-Adi-Mundi, Aayla_Secura, Jor_Carton - heck, even the guy who owned the diner in Attack of the Clones has his own article! None of these characters is as notable as the character we're debating here. None of these characters is more than a minor part of the plot of their series. Grindelwald is not Aayla Secura, Dexter Jettster, or even Boba Fett. He's an important part of the plot in the Potter series, which is, after all, important in the real world. He merits an article for that reason alone. And given that he's existed in the real world for six days, it is premature to judge his importance here. Best, Bcarlson33 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is it doesn't matter whether Grindelwald is more or less "notable" than Boba Fett in their respective fictional universes, what matters is that Grindelwald isn't notable in real life. He's not notable in real life whether or not you compare him to Boba Fett, Grindelwald's lack of real life notability stands on its own. Neitherday 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. The character may have a great relevance with respect to the Harry Potter universe, but its real world relevance is only minor and related to other HP characters (specifically: Albus Dumbledore) - Raistlinsama 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the main antagonists in the 7th book. —« ANIMUM » 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not even remotely true. Tarc 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. The number of sockpuppets in this discussion is astounding. Burntsauce 22:48, 27 July 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.