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 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harry Potter parodies[edit]

List of Harry Potter parodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Long list of parodies, without any kind of cited analysis; References are merely locations of the primary sources from which these things come. Please note that attempting to establish popular perception by listing a number of unanalyzed entries constitutes selecting primary source documents to provide an overall impression, i.e. original research. Harry Potter is tremendously popular, and listing every one-off parody simply isn't encyclopedic. Eyrian 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So what's the point of list articles at all? What makes this article any different from Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc? Very little secondary analysis there that I can see. Plenty of direct references to primary sources. Yet it gets a star because it's high culture, and this gets a deletion nom because it isn't. Serendipodous 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's featured; I have no immediate designs on it. --Eyrian 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not delete it though? It fails all of your criteria. Are you seriously saying that if this list was featured you wouldn't attempt to delete it? That's a pretty empty reason. Serendipodous 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. --Eyrian 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That's it? No? You give this article I've been slaving over for months a deletion nom and the most in depth rationale you can give for doing so is "No"? Serendipodous 19:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying; I've given my reasons for the article currently under discussion. And I've replied to your question about the other. What are you asking about? --Eyrian 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Your only reply was that it was featured. But looking at it, I can't see any analysis or use of secondary sources. What is the difference? Serendipodous 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content-wise? Not much at all. The fact that it's featured is the only reason. --Eyrian 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
And you don't see how staggeringly unfair and arbitrary that stance is? Serendipodous 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. These lists are all alike. There are many copies. And I have a plan. --Eyrian 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
How ironic. You make a stand against trivial pop culture by paraphrasing Battlestar Galactica. Whatever your plan may be, I still don't think this article should be deleted until you have the guts to go up against the featured lists. If you can't win against them, I can't see why you should win here. Serendipodous 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that humor is an essential part of informal writing. I could cite Strunk and White about that, if you like. But I'd hardly say that my reference deserves mention; not even if I were famous.

By your logic, there are no iterative steps. If you can't do the end goal immediately, then you shouldn't start. Can't storm Normandy 'til we've taken Berlin, eh? --Eyrian 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, don't go up against the tough guys until you've beaten up all the wimps on the playground. What if, as Berlin comes over the horizon, you get your figurative butt kicked? What if the people who run featured lists gang up on you and send you home to momma crying? You would have deleted a large number of lists, but an equally large number of lists would remain, protected by their little gold stars. Your victory would be pretty hollow. Serendipodous 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's always the chance of things changing at any time. And this isn't about some sort of personal victory; it's about making sure that Wikipedia conforms to its original principles (as outlined by the five pillars). --Eyrian 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty personal to me. From what I can tell you've launched this crusade pretty much singlehandedly. I, on the other hand, have struggled for months to locate sources for this article pretty much singlehandedly. So forgive me if my hand does not shake yours. Serendipodous 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's lamentable; you're a good and skilled editor, and I'd hate to think of any acrimony. And I'm really not the only one. --Eyrian 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not one for acrimony, but I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye after this. Not after what I've gone through. That's the thing you see. Wikipedia is personal. Serendipodous 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would appear to be too late to make this point, however I should at least say that the reason I decided to edit this article in the first place was to counter a vein of misinformation in the media concerning Harry Potter parodies. Lunatic absolute free speech campaigners (the kind who believe that strangers have every right to read our mail) and anti-Potter vitriolics out to find whatever stick they can to beat the franchise have spread rumours that Harry Potter parodies have been deliberately suppressed by Rowling's lawyers, which is, they sternly admonish, against the law. These rumours have some basis in fact. A Russian author named Dimitri Yemets wrote a series of books called Tanya Grotter that he attempted to have published in Europe. Rowling's lawyers said no, as they were transparent Harry Potter knockoffs. Yemets argued that they were parody, and thus permitted under copyright. A team of Dutch lawyers examined the books, determined they were not parody, and forbade the books from being sold outside Russia. The books are bestsellers in Russia and Yemets is now a wealthy man. That's all that happened. As the article demonstrates, permitted parodies of Harry Potter are, in most cases, legion, and indeed the Barry Trotter series has sold almost a million copies. Another thing I wanted to highlight was the impact Harry Potter parodies have had on the Christian right in the United States, as they have fueled their lunacy over the books promoting Satanism. Serendipodous 08:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe it could do with a trim, not every Harry Potter mention in media needs to be listed, but full actual dedicated parodies deserve a space.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.103.115.44 (talk • contribs).

— 80.103.115.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Bigdaddy1981 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per this crusade of Eyrian's, there are only two acceptable outcomes: either every list on Wikipedia should go, or none of the lists should go. I have already mentioned that this list shares flaws with plenty of feautred lists. If he's willing to delete this list than he should be just as willing to delete them as well. Yet Eyrian is currently unwilling to challenge them. This is cowardly. If he has a problem with lists, he should take it up with the Wikipedia heirarchy and make a ban against any and all lists. This piecemeal attack on individual lists is underhanded and unfair. Serendipodous 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take issue with another user, please take it up on said users talk page (or, better yet, not at all, instead remaining civil). Trying to deface someone in an attempt to tip the scale in your direction is no less bad than anything you are accusing Eyrian of. Many lists such as this have been deleted for similar reasons and many have not. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Jelly Soup 09:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for getting angry, but this whole scenario is so completely random and irrational that I find I have no logical grounds on which to base an argument, since logic does not apply in this case. I have yet to see, in any discussion I have had with anyone on this topic, (and I have had several) any rational justification for why some lists have been deleted and others retained. I do not want to see this list, which I have worked on slavishly for some time, deleted while some other list, which is its equal in terms of sourcing and topicality, is treated like royalty. Give me a quantifiable, rational explanation for this phenomenon and I will go away quietly and never trouble anyone on this topic again. Until then, yes, I will get angry because people have so far proven unwilling to discuss this in a rational manner. Serendipodous 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given my reasons for agreeing with the deletion above. The only reason I seen you give for keep is 'I worked really hard and no other lists are being deleted'. While I sympathize (in all honesty), we have all had large amount of work deleted from Wikipedia for any number or reasons. If you feel that strongly about this, cast a vote (which I don't believe you've done yet), state your reasoning and challenge the rest to back up their votes. As far as lists go, nominate others for deletion if you think they fall under the same heading as this one. -- Jelly Soup 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated my argument at least six times. Various lists exist on Wikipedia. Some of them are featured. At random, as an example, I picked Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, a featured list, and examined it in light of the criticisms raised against this article. The main arguments against this article's existence are that it uses only primary sources, and that it does not make any kind of point. Both of these points apply to that article, but that one is featured, and this one is in danger of deletion. When I raised this with the original nominator, he agreed that there was nothing separating those two articles except that that one was featured, and this one was not. When I asked why he hadn't attempted to delete that article as well, he said because it was featured.
That should not matter. Just because an article is featured is no excuse for it not to be deleted. If it violates Wiki policy, it violates Wiki policy. Plenty of featured articles have been deleted in the past. So. My argument, stated for at least the sixth time, is this: either delete all the lists on Wikipedia, including the featured lists, or leave all lists alone. This article should not be deleted if other articles remain, protected only because someone decided to give them a gold star. It's illogical. Serendipodous 09:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem you're taking more issue with Eyrian's position on this than the position of the other users who have voted. Yes, being featured doesn't make a list immune to deletion, I agree. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that this AfD is about a list that is nothing more than fancruft, listcruft and trivia. The other stuff exists defense rarely works. Challenge a few points being made by other users or accept that there isn't much more to be done. -- Jelly Soup 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the reasons for deletion that I see here a glaringly faulty. This is obviously not OR at all. It has sources all over the place, not personal interpretations. The nom's interpretation of this article seem to violate NPOV, to me. If the editor thinks the article's existence violates POV, I fail to see how. Harry Potter is parodied everywhere because of its popularity. There a plenty of sources in the article, and everything seems pretty well-balanced. As for analysis, if it had analysis it wouldn't be a list, now would it? Lists don't require that sort of thing. If someone wanted to write an article about it, then they would have to provide analysis, but to demand it here under penalty of deletion is unreasonable. Unless a more reasonable and solid reason for deletion is put forward than "It's not an FA" and this false OR accusation, I see no reason for deletion. Lastly, to call this "fancruft" is a bit short-sighted given the huge influence of these books on the reading world. To ignore that effect as fancruft would be to ignore an important part of our culture. Wrad 18:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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