Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Harry Potter-related topics

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

(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]

Merge to the Harry Potter template? Most of the entries are already there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, instructs that lists, categories, and templates can all serve different functions and may all be used for the same material. Lists can provide more context and organization that a category. I don't perceive any clear argument why that isn't the case here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:44, 12 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 So Why 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]

Merge this article is trying to be a list of categories. I'd say it would merge to the navbox too. I'm also working on Draft:List of Harry Potter media too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retarget to Wizarding World~~ which covers the franchise: books, films, video games, theme park attractions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC) updated 14:41, 21 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]

Perhaps, Harry Potter, Harry Potter (film series) and Wizarding World could be re-evaluated and see what should have what, and how much detail too. I think the safest decision is to redirect this to the category.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:20, 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]

The article looks like it has been repurposed so as to not imply a content fork problem, so I'll support rename to Outline of Harry Potter AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's completely fair for a franchise this big to have an outline-style of article to help readers find the specific piece of HP work they are looking for. Yes, this might duplicate a navbox purpose, but navboxes aren't readily searchable. Whether this is renamed, or merged to the Wizarding World, or whatever, that's not an issue, but this should be treated as an outline, which is perfectly valid in mainspace. --Masem (t) 18:42, 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]

Rename to "Outline of Harry Potter" or "Outline of Harry Potter–related topics". This looks like an outline page under a different title, and outlines are not inappropriate self-references—even lists don't fall under the scope of MOS:SELFREF—and certainly don't violate WP:DIRECTORY. (Whether outline pages are necessary or not is a controversial matter but overturning current policy would require global consensus.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:11, 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]

Keep per the guideline WP:CLN, specifically, WP:NOTDUPE. Lists, navboxes and categories all coexist on WP. Either keep or merge would be fine, whatever the consensus brings. --Mark viking (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Outline of Harry Potter", the page is akin to Outline of James Bond. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry Potter (disambiguation). I'm truly surprised that this isn't all there already - this looks exactly like a Dab page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused – what exactly does this look like a dab page for? I don't think anyone could possibly expect to be redirected to The Tales of Beedle the Bard and Magical Objects in Harry Potter (for example) by entering "Harry Potter" in the search bar. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Harry Potter (disambiguation) where I just merged this info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I've undone this edit. You can't just do a bold merge in the middle of a lengthy AfD discussion. This requires consensus. (Quick link to TimTempleton's version of the dab page.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there’s any policy that says we can’t edit and improve other articles when a related article is under AFD discussion. This discussion can still run its course, but as I showed, that dab page was missing quite a lot of information. The closer can read this thread and see my more elegant solution that was reverted. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was, in your words, a merge. AfD is about discussing merges (as well as delete/keep etc.) so it seems to be shortcutting discussion to just go ahead and merge the two pages (albeit while leaving the other intact). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A merge, yes, but not a redirect, which would impact the article under discussion. I'm not aware of any policy that says a different page can't be worked on and improved while a related article is under discussion. But thank you for posting the link to my dab edit above. It seems clear to me that the expanded version of the dab page is more useful than the current very thin page, regardless of the resolution of this particular AfD discussion. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of policy regarding merges during AFD discussion at WP:EDITATAFD, which amounts to getting consensus before attempting a merge. I have been bitten by this one before, too. No harm done. --Mark viking (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks for pointing that out. In this particular case I was improving the dab page while concurrently showing what the merge under discussion might look like. Since there was an objection, and it's policy-based, I'm fine with the revert. The good news is the record is there for anyone who wants to visualize my suggested solution, and for to others who might wish to improve the dab page down the road. I'll add a note to that dab page talk page to assist future editors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 21 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]

A more propriate list would be list of Harry Potter media than a list or outline of Harry Potter. I did some research on how outlines are being used, and its usually when there's no over-arching article that covers all the topics. It could be because Wikipedia has no real criteria or guidelines when it comes to outline and indices too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as outline. I find it very similar to the Bond one. wumbolo ^^^ 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a handy outline that has everything in one place.TH1980 (talk) 02:10, 21 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.