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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of Harry Potter[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has snowballed from "detailed, sourced description of notable HP parodies" to "Big, indiscriminate list with no criteria for inclusion and far too many primary sources." There is absolutely no criterion for what constitutes a notable HP parody, nor is there any effort to try and trim this sprawling list. My main concern is the indiscriminate nature of it all; while some parodies can be viewed as authentic commentary on the series (e.g. the Michael Gerber book), such parodies constitute maybe 10% of this list and could easily be shuffled off elsewhere without such a monstrosity of a list. Previous AFD here resulted in no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Harry Potter Doc Quintana (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't mean merge the whole thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely I do. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge an indiscriminating list including heaps of nonnotable junk besides some more notable parodies into an article about the subject of the parodies. Edison (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not discriminating enough, you can always fix it. I do not feel strongly enough about this article to do more than comment about it at an afd. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This type of thing seems to be the main interest of many WPers. No worse than many pop-culture type articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prune and rewrite; failing that, merge to Harry Potter fandom on the face of it, such a topic would probably be notable because, as the cultural institution of late-80s and early-90s kids, it's bound to be subject to parody, and those parodies are occasionally Notable-with-a-capital-N, such as Barry Trotter or Potter Puppet Pals. However, the nomination is quite right that it's not, currently, an objective look at parodies, and is more of a sprawling list akin to an IPC article. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think WP:SOFIXIT applies here, not deletion. There's no denying that parodies of Harry Potter is a notable subject, and that the article contains material worth saving. Ray^Talk 13:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is clear that there are enough notable parodies for this to be a valid article topic, and the article includes well-sourced information on them. The presence of weak material in an otherwise solid article is absolutely not cause for the article to be deleted, but rather for the matter to be discussed on the talk page and the article to be cleaned up. Baby, bathwater, etc. Ben Kidwell (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Prune and merge Speedy Keep: Looking once more at the article, the article is very well written, very notable, and very well deserves inclusion in the encyclopedia. Sorry 10K Hammer, but not sure why this is even on AfD. As per Ray, if you really see any problem with the article, WP:SOFIXIT. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If I prune it, the slobbering fanboys will just build it up again and we'll be stuck in this loop forever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, I think restarting this loop makes no sense given the consensus in favor for the article. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be edited to remove unreferenced stuff made up in school one day. It could be semiprotected, which would keep at least IP and brand new editors from adding inappropriate content. Edison (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AfD is not for fixing editing problems. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (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.