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 delete, in-universe original research. I am willing to move the contents of the page to userspace for anyone who wants to transwiki. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Second Wizarding War

[edit]
Second Wizarding War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The phrase "Second Wizarding War" is purely some user's invention, so the article can't stand at its current title. Apart from moving it to "Second conflict between Voldemort and Order of the Phoenix in the Harry Potter series," there's nothing to do but delete and/or merge this sprawling plot summary. Deltabeignet 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Google search returns over 1,200,000 results: 
Search of "Second Wizarding War": 2,510,000 results
Search of "Second Wizarding War Harry Potter": 1,200,000 results
Clearly this is not "purely some user's invention". -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search of (with quotes) "Second Wizarding War" and "Harry Potter" returns 901 results. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take out Wikipedia and you get 751. Cut out blogs, forums and wikis, you have 275, with only 28 being unique.-Wafulz 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the simple fact that we can provide sources we prove that the name was not the invention of the original author, therefore making this AfD irrelevant. But in case that is not enough, a concrete reference is made in these three sources:
  • So you know, two of those are fan encyclopedias, which are not considered reliable. Then again, the title is probably the least important part of this article.-Wafulz 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not disrupt to make a point. The examples you gave are different since the names actually are used by the fiction in question, and referred to as such (one, for that matter, is the title of a whole movie). If you feel the article should be kept, there is nothing to gain by attempting sarcasm this way. Try to provide policy or guideline to support your position, instead. — Coren (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I don't ever remember anyone saying "Hey, we just made it through the Battle of Isengard", or "we are fighting in the Clone Wars. Please point me to this so called reference to the use of the names in the books, oh wise one. Killswitch Engage 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's referred to as the Battle of Isengard in both the relevant parts of Two Towers and in retrospect in Return of the King, and the first reference ever to the Clone Wars is Obi-Wan Kenobi mentioning them by name when he notes that Luke's father battled in them. (Plus, you know, the game, animated series, and two comic series about them named "Clone Wars" or some variation.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... yeah, what he said. (Jinx!) :-) — Coren (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, LOTR is a bit too far but it is, at the very least, the title of one of the chapters. You need only go as far as Episode IV to get "clone wars"; just listen to the first exchange in Obi-Wan's house. Luke: "You served in the Clone Wars"? — Coren (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, alright, but couldn't we just move the stuff instead of delete it? It is notable as content and deserves a page, just under a different name. Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Attempted sarcasm? Do they give Nobel Prizes for attemted chemistry?:) Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move it where? Each book article has at least 10K of plot summary, plus the articles on every single event and every single character and every single place and every single thing. It's just plain redundant, as it's more excessive plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see on this page on the Lexicon, "although these larger battles have not been named in the books, we will refer to them with names to identify them in the Lexicon." They're just calling some battles by their own names for purposes of ease; we can't do that here on Wikipedia. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that this is only an argument for renaming?
I have added my opinion on the naming only. I am choosing to abstain on the keeping or deleting of the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said, poor grammar is not a reason to delete. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must be misunderstanding. The policy on self-published sources (that you even link to) says explicitly "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." In what way, then, can these be used for verifiability? I'll concede that it does provide for their use, if "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" [emphasis at source] — but still, it warns against even that. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment was based on the lack of notability for this current article, because there was/is no significant coverage established from (real world) independent sources. Corpx 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Second War (Harry Potter)"? The name shouldn't be a problem, not when there's a convenient move button right on top of the page. --Kizor 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, voting is evil, we don't vote on Wikipedia Æon Insanity Now! 03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Man In Black was commenting that the above were votes, though, and not !votes (pieces of discussion). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can never remember which is which. --Kizor 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For one thing, it could be an article about "Conflicts in Harry Potter" in general, something which would allow the article to address both Wars; since there is not enough material for the first War to create an article that is not too short, this could be an acceptable arrangement. Apart from that, the first war is not covered in the books in a linear fashion and so the information about it would not be a simple plot summary; instead, it would be information gathered from all the books, but still not constituting original research.
    And now that I think of it, we could generalise it and also add short sections about all conflicts, including the Giant Wars and the Goblin rebellions. "Conflicts" is a rather embracing term.
  2. Many notable writers and editorialists have discussed and/or written on various aspects of the Potterverse, including the Wizarding Wars. Quoting their opinion about the significance of these wars within the fictional universe of Harry Potter, about the possible reasons for their development in the way they have turned out, as well as about how plausible and real they look, would be acceptable published work and would not qualify as original research. Mind you that the series has just been concluded; much more such works are bound to be published in the following months, or even weeks.
  3. Apart from the books, there are also the films. Only Order of the Phoenix has been finished, but the other two films are bound to come, and the portrayal of the Wizarding Wars in the silver screen would be an interesting addition to the article. We all know how much is left behind, after all. And again, the importance of the Wizarding Wars would make a section about their portrayal very different from anything that can be found in any of the articles about the books or films (plus, it will be centralised).
  4. And, of course, the spelling, syntax, and grammar of the article should be immaculate, and its structure perfect. I know the opposite would be no reason to delete an article, but still.

All in all, I believe the article should be kept, or at least the discussion about its deletion (but not renaming) postponed until the situation is more stable.
I hope there is no problem with my post being so long. Waltham, The Duke of 07:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful suggested titles like this one should be a good indication of the non-canonicity of most of the content of this article. The fact that its hard to agree on a title is not a coincidence; JK Rowling did not intend for these events to be seen as separate from the overall plot of the series. Savidan 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
which is exactly why we should be re-arranging events and presenting them in a way which makes more sense to readers. No one said Rowling wanted her books to be obvious, but it is our job to present information clearly. Sandpiper 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your proposed title, British Wizarding Civil War (Harry Potter). Obviously, you simply made this up. What was wrong with The Second War (Harry Potter), which is the proper name, given by Rowling herself in the fifth book? — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 02:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which gives the classic example of something which is useful yet would not be appropriate to include as a telephone directory, or similar list. This is nothing of the sort. Sandpiper 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out the non-plot-summary content in the article, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; you pretty much shot down your own argument, there. Analyzing themes is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. If independent reliable sources have done this analysis, then talking about it with proper citations might be appropriate— but even then probably not in a separate article. Notability requires significant coverage from reliable sources. — Coren (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he doesn't. It is important to distinguish between analysis of a source which gives rise to original ideas, and analysis which creates a well ordered presentation of existing information. This is the latter, and as such research that consists of collecting and organising material...is encouraged, though I see someone has been hacking away at that fundamental necessity for writing an encyclopedia. Sandpiper 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An analysis that arranged cherry-picked fictional events into an entirely new narrative is original research. Plus, this is still all plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it but change the title and expand it to include wizard wars in general in the Harry Potter world. O.B. Haive 15:15, 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.
More