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 and move to Outline of Harry Potter. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harry Potter-related topics[edit]

List of Harry Potter-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplication of Category:Harry Potter. No need for a self-referencing list article when it is already available in cats. Appears to be an improper WP:Self-reference. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how do you think it "violates" WP:Self-reference, e.g. with a quote from the policy. Christian75 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the whole thing is an improper self-reference in the article space. There is a reason that this article is unique. This is literally the entire purpose of categories - to allow people to navigate through ALL the Wikipedia articles regarding a certain topic. @Arxiloxos:. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that WP:CLN explicitly says that arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.? Regards SoWhy 08:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • i thought that cats were originally set up for, and are used mainly by, editors, not readers (plese slap me if i am wrong:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, Wizarding World covers the franchise the film started, it doesn't include the original novels. But it does cover more than the novels, so I think that's a good option to.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are a bit of a mess at the moment with content forks all over. Like why Wizarding World franchise has detailed plot summaries that are also in the Harry Potter (film series) article? But Wizarding World seems to want to cover the media franchise according to the hatnote. Same with the video game lists being on Harry Potter, Wizarding World, and List of Harry Potter video games. But somehow Wizarding World is GA status so it must be covering something that most editors think is quality. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the video games article looks like a recent creation (April 2018). It may have to be reviewed, but if it stays it will need content fork resolution as listed above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked up WP:DIRECTORY, just by the off chance that something might come up, and I'm surprised that Wikipedia knew what i was looking for! There is a policy that says this is against Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I believe this falls under this rule.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this list a directory of material for conducting business as per what WP:DIRECTORY points to? Not really - it is the case that there are a lot of notable works within the Harry Potter series and thus listing them all within an outline-style article is far different from a directory of product listings. --Masem (t) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my humble opinion, I think you're misinterpreting the rule. I don't think its there just for conducting business reasons. A lot of the principles of the rule makes sense for things outside of "conducting business purposes" too. This isn't a notable topic, its a directory for the notable topics, this is just a directory and simple listing without contextual information. And in my humble opinion, just being all related to Harry Potter isn't contextual information if it just wants to list the topics that have their own article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is just my humble opinion on the guidelines. please correct me if I'm interpreting them wrong.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OUTLINE isn't a real guideline or an official policy based on. I made that mistake recently too when I referenced another page that looked like a guideline. I'm not saying lists fall under WP:DIRECTORY and WP:SELFREF. I'm only saying that this one falls under that problem. Can you explain why it doesn't fall under WP:DIRECTORY?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I want to stress I am currently working on a list of media which has more contextual content than the current version. once completed, it will make this list redundant.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misinterpreting my argument. I'm saying that being a list is a sufficient condition for WP:DIRECTORY or WP:SELFREF to not apply. WP:SELFREF is about articles (e.g. "Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles..." or "Articles [...] shouldn't refer to Wikipedia..."), and does not mention lists (except as an example of an exception: "many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section"). As for WP:DIRECTORY, I should have read a bit more closely, but I still don't see how it applies as this is not a directory promoting a corporation or a program guide.
    Additionally, information pages are "intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms". I don't believe I ever claimed it was a policy/guideline but it describes common practice; (most) reasons given for deletion here apply to all outline pages but it makes no sense to delete one out of hundreds of such pages (instead a broader RFC would be appropriate).
    Your draft is not a reason to delete this page until it is actually in the article space. Even then, it seems rather like it would be better to merge the draft with this outline page (arguing redundancy with something that doesn't exist yet seems more like an argument for not creating that redundant thing). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, it doesn't exist yet. However, it has far more contextual content than the current list. Once it is created, the argument can't be made that it should be deleted because its a valid WP:CONTENTFORK. It would be a valid article, not a directory. I don't think WP:DIRECTORY is limited to just "promoting corporation or a program guide". It also falls under simple list without contextual content.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:38, 19 May 2018 (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