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 Close. There was an AfD on this just a few days ago. If you (or any other editor, for that matter) disagreed with that closure, take it to DRV rather than re-nominating it. I withhold any summary judgment on the article itself. Hemlock Martinis 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, looking at the rather peculiar last afd, let's try and address some issues:

• it doesn't matter how much it is sourced: it requires multiple, independent sources: has anyone commented on the methodology of harry potter spells besides the leaky cauldron or whatever?
• on the "usefulness" rationale provided last time, WP:USEFUL: In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest - how is this not of localized interest? If no one has noted anything about these spells, that's a good indicator.
• also in terms of use; explaining the plot of the harry potter books or movies does not require one to know what spells are used; hell, the only one you need to know is the killing curse, although if you right it out "killing curse" I'm not sure what the fuss is about. ::P.S.; I also highly doubt simple translating the spell's name from latin is any claim of notability.... David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete I don't see much in the previous AFD in favour of keeping that isn't WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, or "it's a good article". Wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping ground for Harry Potter fancruft, that's what the Harry Potter Wiki is for. Miremare 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - it should at least be merged. I have found the information in this article great use to me numerous times in the past. There are other articles wuite similar, such as 'potions in harry potter' and 'characters in harry potter' (you can see them at the link-box at the bottom of the article). It is a very useful concoction I think. Lradrama 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Miremare 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge. Although I am an avid editor of the page, it isn't encyclopedic. The information is very informative and useful, and should be kept in my opinion. At the very least, it should be merged with Magic (Harry Potter) even though Spells in Harry Potter is larger than that page. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's not encyclopedic it shoudln't, by definition, be in an encyclopedia. Miremare 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The information is obviously wanted at the very least, and I bllieve it could be a featured list if we just stop all of this nonsensical dicussion. The vandalism, the merging, the deletion. The page is needed and will get more treatment if we stop scaring everyone away. WE can't possibly merge it with the Magic page, becuase then Horcruxes will be moved to the page, potions will be moved to the page, the Deathly Hallows will be moved to the page, other objects will be moved to the page and the Dark Arts will be moved to the page by that logic and after that, the discussion will inevitably become: "Why don't we spilt them up into their former pages?" Everything should stay as it is. Therequiembellishere 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Transwiki-The above now sounds ridiculous, even to me. It also isn't very encyclopedic, that's true, so it would do better on a fan encyclopedia.Therequiembellishere 01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—discussions to merge or transwiki have been met with disapproval, so this remains the logical last resort. Although, a new consensus to merge or transwiki would be ideal. Generally agree with the nom. — Deckiller 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The information is very interesting, well-compiled and organized, is fairly detailed, and is altogether rather interesting. That being said, it still has no place on Wikipedia. Again, this article deals with specific, in-universe information that would not conceivably be of interest to anyone who was not familiar with the Harry Potter universe. What's more, the article is almost entirely a directory of individual subjects that make no assertion of notability. The only original information is the etymologies, and those alone do not justify the list's existence, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think it's pretty intersting, and it seems like a lot of work has gone into it, but I can't see any logical justification for inclusion. Calgary 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft and listcruft. Baring that, Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a Protego Totalis. This is undeniably part of the Harry Potter universe, of which there are tons of articles in Wikipedia, and you sure can't call it original research, since this is all drawn from published material. I will not venture any idiotic suggestions that one must list which page of which book the spell was listed. Mandsford 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in mind that the fact that other articles which discuss aspects of the Harry Potter universe exist does not exactly provide an argument as to why this article should be kept. Calgary 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Further note that all the latin roots &c. seem to all be from one published source on about.com. Hardly a volume of literature. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This cannot be a featured article. This cannot be any article. There just aren't any references to use to write this article, and the fact that a lot of people wish that weren't so doesn't make it so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but lots of cleanup and cutting out stuff is needed. This information is encyclopedic, and while it may only appeal to a select group, doesn't everything? Useight 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Most things may appeal primarily to a select group, but no, articles are not supposed contain information that is of value only to a small group of people. Calgary 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. 3 of the top ten most visited pages on Wikipedia have to do with Harry Potter. That is not a small group of people. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, irrelevant data. Seeing as how there's already an article on Harry Potter magic, any important data from this page can be merged to it. The article is very poorly sourced, and fails to establish notability with third-party sources. A total re-write, along with many more sources and especially third-party ones would be needed. Important spells can be noted elsewhere, and the rest can be deleted. The Clawed One 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to the Harry Potter wiki. The thing is, people seem to think overvalue Wikipedia, and undervalue any other wiki. People seem to take pride in the fact that stuff is on Wikipedia. But if the same information is available on the Harry Potter wiki, it isn't give the same level of defense. One of the main editors of this article came out and said that the information isn't encyclopedic. And many people in this discussion agree with him (including me). But that doesn't mean the information is uselss. It can serve its purpose well enough if it was on another wiki and externally linked from various Harry Potter articles, say Magic (Harry Potter). Pepsidrinka 00:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and delete Calgary said it best.. but please, if it's deleted, make sure it goes somewhere else first, because I want to be able to use it as a reference point sometimes -- even if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. spazure (contribs) 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure fancruft and almost a "guide". Transwiki is the best option here per lack of notability for "spells in HP", let alone a list of them Corpx 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Spells play a major role in the books. --musicpvm 06:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• On the basis that there is a HP-Wiki, transwiki this there, as suggested above, and possibly leave an external link on this title, to that x-ref. -- Simon Cursitor 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki fails several criteria for inclusion as an individual page in Wikipedia - WP:NN, WP:OR but would be useful information in the context of a Harry Potter wiki. [[Guest9999 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Heavily trim most of the spells keep, I think, Expelliarmus and the Unforgiveables, as the former at least has a standing (albiet weak) in popular culture, and the Unforgiveables are a major plot point and just might meet WP:FICT. Failing that, merge Will ^(talk) 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No actual sources to confirm notability, nor is this list needed to understand the plot. ' 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve sources for the exact same reasons I gave in the previous AfD. --Targeman 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wow, have any of you people voting delete read the last AfD? Evidently not, so I'm going to copy and paste my last response here: what about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? On another note, yes, Wikipedia articles ought to have third-party sources, but have you tried using common sense? Articles need third-party sources when, for example, they need proof that they even exist (like the moon landing hoax). However, I think that in this particular sense there are some pretty reputable sources, like, oh, I don't know...the books that they appeared in, maybe? What about books that have been previously mentioned, The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? I remember people complaining about the etymology sections about WP:OR, but seriously, some of the spells are just plain made up! Only the author knows how she made them, and to get in a twist about that is straight up anal. Get your heads out of your asses, guys, and use your energy to argue about articles that actually cause problems. GlassCobra 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also oppose a merge for strictly technical reasons: this page is huge as it is, merging it into another article would be totally unwieldy. GlassCobra 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the nom, "WP:USEFUL: In spite of this, there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest - how is this not of localized interest?" Way to cherry pick the quote, dude. Here's the entire thing: "In spite of this, there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information 'useful.'" First off, you're misinterpreting, that's local in the sense of distance. Even taken in the context that you intended, this is hardly localized -- in case you hadn't noticed, Harry Potter is read all over the world and has made Rowling the highest-earning author in history. GlassCobra 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment: You call WP:IDONTLIKEIT on us, but you should look at WP:ILIKEIT yourself. Yes, the many books on the articles note the spells, but that just means they can provide in-universe information. But third-party sources that establish the spells as important to the real world and relevant to culture are what is needed to establish notability. It's like saying that Provost Zahkarov of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri has notability for his own page because he appears in an important game. Unless a third-party has published an out-of-universe analysis of the spells, they fail notability. I have made many edits to pages regarding fictional things myself. And unless third-party sources are found, then there's no hope for out-of-universe content beyond what is discussed in the books, which are not basis for notability because they are inherently biased. Don't say "this article is notable because it's in Harry Potter", or "because it's in Harry Potter and that's important". The last sentence gives grounds for a subsection of important spells to the HP Magic page, but that's it. Third-party sources are needed for this. 13 references for a page of this size, regardless of how good they are, is simply not enough. The Clawed One 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Shorten and then merge with the Harry Potter article. Major spells could be done for there. This is too trival to be on a encyclopedia. --Hirohisat ^Talk 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- from the last nomination: "article is very encyclopedic; it not only provides the list of spells, it explains each one of them and includes more non-trivial information than many lists. It is properly sourced, IMO, and is a B-class article that is discussed constantly. I can't believe it would be nominated for deletion. Afd is not the place for your concerns. If you've got a problem with the references, tag it with ((refimprove))." I agree with GlassCobra's comments; being useful is an excellent rationale for wanting to keep the article, as being useful is the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is most certainly not of localized interest; Harry Potter is one of the best-selling novels of all time. Also, I strongly oppose any idea of merging it with another article. It has far too much content. --Boricuaeddie 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one is worth keeping -- and necessary to be kept-- because it crosses the boundary of the individual books. I doubt there are many other series of books for which I would support such an article. The reason why this series is different should be obvious to anyone not in a coma the last few months. DGG (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Per my reasons in the previous AfD, which had to do with all of the sourceable literature that has been published analyzing and recording the Harry Potter universe in an encyclopedic manner. Can't someone pick up one of these books and source the article already? Ichormosquito 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also see my comments about the currency of these spells in the mainstream media. If a subject is notable, there's no reason why primary sources should be shunned. Wikipedia is not paper etc. Ichormosquito 06:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I interpret this as meaning not that Wikipedia is a "general" encyclopedia, but that it aspires to be the union of all encyclopedias. Is it conceivable that there could be a specialized Encyclopedia of Harry Potter? Yes (I wouldn't be surprised if it exists already). That means that anything that is "encyclopedic" enough to be published in such an encyclopedia is also eligible to be included in Wikipedia. --Itub 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely not what that phrase means. Notice how it says "incorporating elements" and not "incorporating [all] the elements". General does not mean that it can include anything and everything, down to the last detail, it specifically means the opposite, that wikipedia is meant to give a general view of things, general means global and without too much detail. Like many users you misunderstand this idea, which is why so many people keep creating pages about every single character in their favourite TV series, resulting in the lot being deleted or merged into the main article. Jackaranga 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we disagree. I agree that there needs to be some threshold of notability, but WP:NOTPAPER takes precedence in many cases. Nothing should get deleted for being too specialized or too detailed. For being not notable, maybe. --Itub 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per my arguments last time, and the arguments of Glass Cobra, Borricuaddie and others above, this page is useful, relevant and encyclopedic. The reason that this article (and not others which are actually full of more cr*p and less useful to the overall Wiki) is nominated for deletion is because the nominator dislikes it, and thinks that it is unable to be properly sourced. Websites which offer a critical analysis, as Leaky and Mugglenet do, are certainly worthy and reliable. JKR actually likes the structure and content of the websites so much that on more than one occasion she has provided exclusive interviews. If that's not enough, another editor (I'm not sure which one of us it was) found a pronunciation guide for many of the words and spells found in Harry Potter. If we are content to take information from fansites for articles such as Survivor 16, but are ready to delete this one because it cannot be referenced without going to the fansites there is clearly something wrong with Wikipedia. Another reason that it is here is because a lot of the information has been deemed uneccesary, but with the constant pruning of the article that is happening now the extra information put in by who I can only assume are IPs and newly registered users, the seven million times a spell has been used will be cut down to the first time or most notable time.

I do not support a merge with the article the current size it is. As I understand it, a merge is when we take the information from one article and put it into another. It is commonly used when the article to be merged does not contain sufficient detail for a separate entry (this one has more information that the article it has been suggested to merge into), or when two articles have the same content (also not true). As for deletion, I believe I have made myself clear there. A transwiki, on the other hand, may be successful. I would still recommend keeping perhaps a scaled down version of this article, with a link to the transwikied article with full information on all spells. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The spells are linked on so many pages that if you removed this ppl reading articles where the spells are mentioned wont know what the hell they are, if they havent read the books. CHANDLERtalk 11:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. — Ichormosquito 10:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC) [reply]
• Keep - Wikipedia is not a dictionnary, but these words would not be found in a dictionnary. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, this is not a list in the sense that each item has a short description, there is worse for example List of Content Management Systems. The whole lot together is more notable than any character in the series, and maybe more than Harry Potter the character himself. Almost everyone knows Harry Potter is about magic, nearly nobody who hasn't read it knows who Hermione or Ron are, yet we keep their articles. Each spell is not notable but put together they are almost as notable as the universe itself. Many people don't know the title of each book, yet each has its own article, yet almost everyone knows, that Harry Potter is about magic spells. Jackaranga 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as in the previous AFD, all the arguments in favour of keeping seem to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, "it's encyclopedic" when it clearly isn't, or in one case that we should use our "common sense" and let it stay. If common sense were applied to this AFD, the only outcome would be this collection of fictional trivia being deleted from this encyclopedia. Miremare 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as in the previous AFD, all the arguments in favour of deleting seem to be IDONTLIKEIT, NOTUSEFUL, "it's unencyclopedic" when it clearly is, or in one case that we should use our "common sense" and delete it. --Itub 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes a list of spells from a fictional universe "encyclopedic"? I can understand if people think the new WP:FICT is too strict (and can understand if a compromise is needed), but a list of every spell is overboard. Is it needed for a general understanding of the Harry Potter universe? Why not just cite a few examples on the Magic of Harry Potter page like most tertiary sources? — Deckiller 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Itub, the arguments for deletion are 1: No multiple independent sources WP:V, WP:N. 2: Only of interest to people who not only read the books, but have a great interest in the minutiae of the books. 3: In-universe collection of fictional spells WP:FICT. 4: Fancruft WP:NOT#INFO. 5: Unencyclopedic, and I'd like to hear why you think otherwise. 6: Not even notable. Harry Potter may be notable, but notability is not inherited and there is already an article on Magic in Harry Potter. What next, an individual article for each spell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miremare (talk • contribs)
      • 1: We don't desperately need multiple independent sources for the spells (although I am sure they can be found), because these are easily verified from the books alone, and the notability of the spells is established by the notability of the book (which is verified by dozens of sources). 2: Spells play a large part in Harry Potter, Harry Potter is a highly notable series, and it doesn't matter to whom something is 'interesting'. I could pick some random article about a highly complicated science subject I understand nothing of, and say "it is only of interest to professors, so delete". 3: The fact that it looks in-universe is troubling, but is not a reason for deletion, because we can do something about it. 4: "Fancruft" is a nonsensical argument. 5: Why is it unencyclopaedic? You don't like in-depth coverage fictional subjects in an encyclopaedia, others do. 6: Of course it is notable, spells are one of the most important things in Harry Potter, you couldn't cover the books without mentioning the spells. Keep. Melsaran 01:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if we want to get into true WikiLawyering, if I don't like deep fictional coverage and others do, then they would violate ILIKEIT. Such an argument offsets. That's why I don't use those silly "arguments to avoid" hyperlinks, regardless of my stance. The question still stands: what makes it encyclopedic in relation to Wikipedia's vision, policies, and guidelines? — Deckiller 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but ILIKEIT says "let's keep it, I like it, it doesn't matter that it isn't encyclopaedic/notable/referenced". In my opinion, this article can easily be referenced, and is notable enough, because the Harry Potter series are very notable and spells play a large role in them. I don't really understand why we should delete every in-depth coverage of fictional subjects or popular culture, and keep everything related to science and history. You can't really say that Harry Potter doesn't pass the notability guidelines, right? Melsaran 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I used to take the same stance, that "notability can be inhereted". It boils down to covering things succinctly; the basics of spells in Harry Potter can be covered in a few paragraphs (citing specific examples of spells if necessary), because all this page shows is a list of individual spells. Inhereted notability can be taken to extremes; it can be a defense for having dozens of small articles about fictional concepts just because they are part of a notable franchise (after all, we don't have small, individual articles on aspects Bill Gates' lifestyle). The notability of the parent article should, logically speaking, mean that more real-world information would be available to show that subarticles could maintain a balanced, encyclopedic treatment of fiction. The key is at least showing that such information exists. Naturally, there are exceptions, but this is a scenerio where a list of spells is not the same as a complete, prose-based, and general article on Harry Potter magic (which I would be !voting keep on). — Deckiller 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I'm admittedly a newcomer to the AfD process, I fail to see the fuss here. WP:N(fiction) states that 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. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. That seems to be precisely what's presented in this list -- spells are sourced both in the fiction and in secondary sources, providing detail on the development and etymology of the spells. Notability thus seems clear, especially under the fiction guidelines, so I'd stress a keep. Ashdog137 21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just because it isn't of interest to everyone on the planet does not mean it isn't notable. The arguments for deletion seem to be "I don't like Harry Potter therefore it's not notable", "I haven't read the book and I don't understand the article therefore it must be minutiae", and "needs more sources". The spells are essentially another character in the book, and an important one at that (there is no story without the spells). It is also a useful reference. I found it very useful just a few weeks ago when I was reading the last book. It is clearly notable. In theory it could be merged with the article about the series, or the Harry Potter Magic article, but then that article would be too long, someone would nominate it be split, everyone would agree, and then were right back here where we started. I really don't understand why there is a crusade to delete this, but it should not be deleted. I don't see why the books themselves are not a significant citation, as they should be for a character in any other book. But if so, there are other books written about the topic by other authors. There are lots of those books listed at the end of the article, but they are not specifically footnoted. If someone who has those books wants to go back and improve those citaions, that would be helpful. But those grounds alone are not enough to warrant deletion. nut-meg 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:GlassCobra has been canvassing for "keep" votes amongst those who voted on this article's previous AFD.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Miremare 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is wrong, he hasn't done much. Only two of these people might have been influenced by the message (Ichormosquito and Borricuaddie) The_dark_lord_trombonator had voted before the message was sent. Therequiembellishere 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have found my way here, anyway; but I did warn him about it. The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want. Ichormosquito 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Canvassing is not a tit for tat thing Corpx 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ichormosquito already let me know that technically it was canvassing, if you look on my talk page. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. I'll keep my wording more neutral when letting people know about debates from now on. GlassCobra 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I for one am glad you did. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I would think nominating the same article for deletion every two weeks would also be against wikipedia policy, but what do I know... nut-meg 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a point: ideally, consensus should count for something. ichormosquito 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I'd already planned to contribute before getting the note, I was just waiting a few days to see how the discussion was going, and I think it's obvious to me that there's not going to be any solution to whatever problems people have here on AFD. I suggest folks take their concerns to the talk page instead. FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)"The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want." That's ridiculous. Two wrongs do not make a right. And what's this about voting? This is most certainly not a vote; it's a discussion. I just want to let you guys know that this page has been in my watchlist for months, and that I was well aware of this discussion before I was contacted. Please note that I also added ((not a ballot)) to the top of this page. I was in no way influenced by the message. --Boricuaeddie 02:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I totally agree with you Nut-meg. Contrary to Thereq...'s belief, I was notified by Glass Cobra and I am glad that I was. As a watcher of the page, I often click "diff" when it appears in my watchlist, and now I rarely look at the article from top to bottom (consequently I was surprised to see about 300 million tags at the top of the page). I may not have learned of this debate otherwise. It is such a shame to see an article so worthy for inclusion proposed to be deleted every other week, and Glass Cobra's message did not influence my vote at all. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never said that it influenced your votes, and I'm glad you voted anyway. I was just arguing that he didn't do much anyway as very few responded at the time. I guess I read your times wrong Great Lord Trombonator, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra has stated that he was not aware of the rules regarding canvassing, which is fair enough. However, many of you seem to be entirely missing the point on this. It's not that the messages were likely to influence your viewpoint, it's that they encouraged you to make a !vote when you may not otherwise have voted at all, as at least two of you have already said. A mass encouraging of people with a particular known view to vote WILL seemingly change concensus in this view's favour, and this is why it is not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. Miremare 03:58, 18 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.