794:, then the vast majority of the Potter content on Knowledge (XXG) would be deleted as well in order to ensure even enforcement. I reject the claim that a simple overview of the Battle must be considered original research merely because the article does not cite a published secondhand source from another entity than that of the reader. To wait for a secondhand source for this article is foolish as all that is required for a comprehensive article is available within the population of Knowledge (XXG) contributors who have read the pertinent selection within the
696:- not every chapter of HP deserves its own article. This is an unwiedly plot summary that mixes fan interpretation with Rowling's text with no distinction. Destroy it. Star Wars battles are covered not just in the movies but in numerous "expanded universe" type materials, like trading card games etc. They actually have enough information that they can be written from material considered canon, rather than infered or added by fans. JK just doesn't give that kind of depth, and probbably intentionally. They are very different works.
748:- There is nothing wrong with this article other than possibly a rewrite. That being said, it does not deserve to get a complete axe as it does explain the defining point in a multi-billion dollar literary series. Do not merge. Provide a basic background on the Second Wizarding War page with a redirect link in the pertinent section to the Battle of Hogwarts. There's no solid reason to delete this, judging from previous votes on this page.
1159:
by default. If dozens of Star Wars battles, most of which aren't in the movie or are briefly so, have their own articles, then why can't the defining battle of a series that's sold a third of a billion copies get one? If it violates rules, then you have a bunch of other articles to dismantle as well.
162:
There is nothing to be said about this battle other than a plot summary. The main plot summary should be made an appropriate length, not split into subarticles. If there is enough to say about the battle to warrant an article (public response, etc) then the article can be recreated, but I doubt it
1054:
While we are discussing The Lord of the Rings's battle pages, should we list them for deletion as well? If this page gets deleted, then I think the others should be (or merged). This is because the LOTR battle pages are very similar to this HP page. Is there any way for the Afd debates to come to
802:
from Lord of the Rings for an excellent template for a better article and one that evidently has drawn no calls for deletion. Pelennor Fields is not greatly different in the context in which the Battle of
Hogwarts article ought to be rewritten, and they are both summaries of fictional events
1007:- This article is very extensive on the matter. Looking at the amount of information it provides, I would have no doubt that many people might think of it as a great source (I know I did). I can't find a reason why it should be deleted either, what it really needs is a minor cleanup. --
308:
You're not right, the Manual of Style says just that trivial details should be avoided in fictional thing infoboxes, not that real world thing infoboxes should not be used in fictional thing infoboxes. And that battle template is used in LOTR battles (see, for example,
669:
Battle of Endor makes sense as an article - but it should be an article on the ways in which the event has been covered in films, games, etc - not a summary. As this event has no out-of-universe significance, it is particularly inappropriate for an article.
965:
48:
as excessive plot summary. Merge/redirect has a strong following here too, but the suggested merge target is also currently up for AFD. If that page is kept, there should be no problem with a redirect to it being created in this space.
964:, he has a valid point- he's using "notability by comparison." Both LOTR and HP are well-known/expansive works of literature, and have WP articles that serve as plot summaries of their most important(/notable) events. Furthermore,
294:
The battle template is a key violation of the
Knowledge (XXG) style, since real world templates should be reserved for real world things. An appropriate fictional templates should headline things like author and book title. See
392:
The information will probably re appear over time, so it probably needs to be moved elsewhere, in a different form. Perhaps, as the book was only released two bloody days ago, information will become more reliable in the
497:
Maybe we should remove the battle infobox, but I still feel like this is a very significant event in the Harry Potter series and that it deserves its own article. Whatever though, I'll go with whatever you guys
821:
Copy of main HP page. Non notable subject to have its own page! By the way, the name of the battle is "The Battle of
Hogwarts." Why do people think that it is the "second?" It clearly states this in the book!
987:
That's circular logic. If that article is nominated for deletion, it could be argued that it should be kept because this one exists. If that article is in violation of policy, it should be deleted too.
1084:. This is just a plot summary, a retelling, not an encyclopedic article. It can never become an encyclopedic article. Remove all this in-universe, fannish plot detail, and what remains? Nothing! --
376:
Anything useful should be in the
Deathly Hallows book article. It has now been renamed but there is so much OR around at the moment - where in the books is anything called "The Second Wizarding War"?
798:. If you desire an agreement as to what to include in the summary, fine. Rewrite it to fall in-line with the standards as detailed earlier, and you'll have no cause to delete this. Reference
898:
I'm not sure why this article should be so strongly suggested for deletion when there are many other fictional battle articles out there, of no real superior quality. For instance,
654:"Precedent" implies that those articles have been nominated for AfD and survived. This is not the case. Those articles should also be deleted as essentially being plot summaries.-
179:, and they deserve recognition. It is noted above that the material is "too redundant and excessive to be merged", but it clarifies event progression in the novel as they occur.
296:
256:
112:
124:
123:. Rather than shorten the enormous plot summary there, editors decided to create an article on this fictional military battle. The page completely ignores both the
478:
it might be better to do some editing first, to get the various articles into some sort of coherent shape. Two days is not enough time yet to resort to deletion.
85:
80:
803:(evidently wholly original research, something questionably taboo - but apparently acceptable for Pelennor Fields?) with references only to the text to boot.
1169:
Then we dismantle those articles. If
Article X violates policies and guidelines, and Article Y does too, we don't use them to justify each other's existence.-
89:
72:
283:. I understood the battle better when I read this synopsis. Also, I don't think it breaks the Wikipedian style because it contains the battle template.
1068:
Having read the pages, I agree. What do others think? I think that we should reach a consensus on this page first before committing to about 5 Afd!
1016:::Also, before anything is deleted, let us seriously take a look at what links to the article, because a lot of things link to this article. --
621:- I feel that this is an extremely important part of the series, and is very significant, although, the infobox could be changed or removed.
735:
606:
224:
120:
17:
252:
227:. Unnecessary as an article, but it seems a likely search term. No reason readers shouldn't be sent to the article on the book.
131:. The material is too redundant and excessive to be merged, and since the title is in dispute, it shouldn't be redirect either.
864:
does not remove the flaws from this article. Pelennor Fields (and other articles) will be examined later- I'll probably make a
976:
610:
449:
207:
I'll agree with you on that. Beyond recognition of the deaths that occur, it is merely an excessively detailed plot summary.
1187:
1173:
1164:
1149:
1135:
1123:
1109:
1088:
1072:
1059:
1045:
1022:
992:
982:
951:
935:
899:
890:
872:
857:
847:
840:
826:
807:
799:
773:
752:
740:
700:
686:
674:
658:
625:
613:
597:
574:
558:
534:
518:
502:
489:
470:
455:
429:
413:
397:
384:
368:
352:
339:
317:
303:
287:
275:
263:
243:
231:
211:
196:
183:
167:
154:
135:
54:
861:
1119:, the book's article already has a synopsis of that battle, and Knowledge (XXG) isn't supposed to be retelling a story.
1202:
961:
945:
788:"detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot."
680:
409:, as the Battle of the Department of Mysteries and the First Battle of Hogwarts are already described in that article.
36:
1105:
article, should fit in well there. At a glance it appears that a good deal of this article is already there, in fact.
76:
531:
641:
have their own pages and in the Star Trek
Universe there are numerous entries for fictional battles such as the
1201:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
731:
176:
68:
60:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
583:
1102:
1036:
907:
717:
622:
567:
511:
464:
438:
422:
406:
330:
239:
and redirect. This is coverage of a fictional even that has very little coverage "out of the universe"
769:
based on its title and contents? It takes more than a rewrite when the article is fundamentally flawed.-
515:
551:
546:
911:
721:
638:
310:
499:
347:. There may not even be anything to merge, given the size of the plot summary on the book's page.
259:. It seems unlikely that this battle will ever receive significant coverage in reliable sources.--
1146:
1132:
973:
671:
642:
446:
410:
151:
860:, which has not been assessed for deletion yet, is an appropriate comparison? Pointing out that
844:
804:
749:
915:
903:
394:
365:
348:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
467:
783:
762:
713:
709:
128:
1120:
634:
208:
180:
865:
791:
766:
1184:
1161:
1106:
1085:
645:
300:
260:
835:
It is used to disambiguate between the first engagement in the
Astronomy Tower in the
297:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes_and_succession_boxes
1041:
1018:
1009:
969:
485:
442:
426:
144:
this article, it makes sense and is about an important battle which needs describing.
697:
335:
272:
106:
1170:
1069:
1056:
919:
887:
869:
823:
770:
655:
377:
314:
284:
193:
175:
the article into the main article, if anything. Significant deaths occur in the
132:
425:, which is itself problematic (it's a term that appears nowhere in the books).
989:
948:
683:
571:
240:
228:
164:
150:
where
Deathly Hallows can have as crazed a summary as Half-Blood Prince does.
50:
1131:, seems like a useful redirect but a separate page for it seems like excess.
633:- The article is not without precedent. In the Star Wars Universe both the
1145:, this is merely one chapter of a book that already has its own article.
886:
There is no point in merging, as the material is the same on both pages!
480:
1055:
this page instead of creating multiple debates with duplicate arguments?
192:
So why exactly should the deaths be reiterated? This isn't
Sparknotes.-
966:
Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
782:
I still support the rewrite as it deals with falling in line with
1195:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1095:
Keep, it has a lot of good info, and it's going to be used a lot
1183:
to second wizarding war (where it exists as a section anyway).
918:) have never been nominated for deletion as far as I can see.
679:
This article shouldn't exist solely because others do. See
720:, which is on its way to a delete result at its own AFD. -
526:-I do think it needs the page, as it would clutter the
257:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
102:
98:
94:
944:
Each article should be judged on its own merit - See
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1205:). No further edits should be made to this page.
790:If you demand it be deleted because it violates
8:
364:if the merged article will become too long.
271:, to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.--
609:. Even provide a little information there.
119:This is a summary of part of the plot of
765:, entirely in-universe? How is it not
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
843:is notable enough for its own page?
607:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows
253:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)
225:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
121:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
586:
24:
1031:This article could probably be
716:. Don't try to merge this with
547:
856:Can you explain why you think
708:. Savidan is correct; this is
552:
1:
900:Battle of the Pelennor Fields
858:Battle of the Pelennor Fields
841:Battle of the Pelennor Fields
800:Battle of the Pelennor Fields
723:
545:
530:page, it really is too long.
129:what Knowledge (XXG) is not
1222:
582:into Second Wizarding War
542:into Second Wizarding War
1188:20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1174:21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1165:20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1150:19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1136:23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1124:06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1110:03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1089:23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1073:19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1060:19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1046:02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1023:20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1013:19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
993:17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
983:17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
952:15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
936:15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
891:15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
873:15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
848:15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
827:15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
808:13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
774:12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
753:11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
741:23:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
701:18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
687:17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
675:17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
659:12:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
626:10:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
614:10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
611:Not your grandmas account
598:09:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
575:06:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
559:05:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
535:04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
519:03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
503:02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
490:21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
471:20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
456:20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
430:20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
414:20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
398:20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
385:18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
369:17:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
353:17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
340:17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
318:20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
304:17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
288:17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
276:16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
264:16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
244:16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
232:16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
212:15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
197:15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
184:15:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
177:Second Battle of Hogwarts
168:14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
155:14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
136:14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
69:Second battle of Hogwarts
61:Second battle of Hogwarts
55:16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1198:Please do not modify it.
584:
32:Please do not modify it.
839:. Can you explain how
714:personal interpretation
960:While it is true that
908:Battle of the Hornburg
148:Transwiki to Wikibooks
784:expanded plot summary
763:expanded plot summary
712:liberally mixed with
329:relevant items to to
163:will be necessary. --
1103:Second Wizarding War
1037:Second Wizarding War
761:So how is it not an
718:Second Wizarding War
568:Second Wizarding War
532:Therequiembellishere
514:Its already there.
512:Second Wizarding War
465:Second Wizarding War
439:Second Wizarding War
423:Second Wizarding War
407:Second Wizarding War
331:Second Wizarding War
1035:to the more formal
912:Battle of Osgiliath
786:so that it offers,
639:Battle of Coruscant
570:is also up for AFD
390:Merge/Keep/Redirect
311:Battle of Osgiliath
962:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
946:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
862:other stuff exists
681:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
643:Battle of Wolf 359
916:Lord of the Rings
904:Battle of Bywater
837:Half Blood Prince
792:original research
767:original research
739:
623:Spec ops commando
1213:
1200:
1044:
1021:
1012:
933:
729:
727:
595:
593:
592:
589:
556:
554:
549:
382:
110:
92:
34:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1203:deletion review
1196:
1040:
1017:
1008:
979:
920:
796:Deathly Hallows
635:Battle of Endor
590:
587:
528:Deathly Hallows
452:
378:
125:manual of style
83:
67:
64:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1219:
1217:
1208:
1207:
1191:
1190:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1153:
1152:
1139:
1138:
1129:Merge/redirect
1126:
1113:
1112:
1096:
1092:
1091:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1063:
1062:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
985:
977:
955:
954:
939:
938:
893:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
851:
850:
830:
829:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
777:
776:
756:
755:
743:
703:
691:
690:
689:
677:
664:
663:
662:
661:
649:
648:
628:
616:
600:
577:
561:
537:
521:
505:
492:
473:
458:
450:
432:
416:
400:
387:
371:
355:
351:orm. perhaps
342:
323:
322:
321:
320:
291:
290:
278:
269:Redirect/Merge
266:
246:
234:
217:
216:
215:
214:
202:
201:
200:
199:
187:
186:
170:
157:
145:
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1218:
1206:
1204:
1199:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1147:Marc Shepherd
1144:
1143:Strong delete
1141:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1133:Axem Titanium
1130:
1127:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1014:
1011:
1006:
994:
991:
986:
984:
980:
974:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:
957:
956:
953:
950:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
934:
932:
929:
926:
923:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
894:
892:
889:
885:
882:
881:
874:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
849:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
825:
820:
817:
816:
809:
806:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
778:
775:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
751:
747:
744:
742:
737:
733:
728:
726:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
702:
699:
695:
692:
688:
685:
682:
678:
676:
673:
672:Phil Sandifer
668:
667:
666:
665:
660:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
647:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
627:
624:
620:
617:
615:
612:
608:
604:
601:
599:
596:
594:
581:
578:
576:
573:
569:
565:
562:
560:
557:
555:
550:
541:
538:
536:
533:
529:
525:
522:
520:
517:
513:
509:
506:
504:
501:
496:
493:
491:
487:
483:
482:
477:
474:
472:
469:
466:
462:
459:
457:
453:
447:
444:
440:
436:
433:
431:
428:
424:
421:, but not to
420:
417:
415:
412:
411:Fullmetal2887
408:
404:
401:
399:
396:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
375:
372:
370:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
343:
341:
338:
337:
332:
328:
325:
324:
319:
316:
312:
307:
306:
305:
302:
298:
293:
292:
289:
286:
282:
279:
277:
274:
270:
267:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:
245:
242:
238:
235:
233:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
213:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
198:
195:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
171:
169:
166:
161:
158:
156:
153:
152:Phil Sandifer
149:
146:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
130:
126:
122:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1197:
1194:
1180:
1156:
1142:
1128:
1116:
1098:
1081:
1032:
1015:
1004:
1002:
1001:
930:
927:
924:
921:
895:
883:
866:village pump
836:
818:
795:
787:
745:
724:
710:plot summary
705:
693:
630:
618:
602:
585:
579:
563:
543:
539:
527:
523:
507:
494:
479:
475:
460:
434:
418:
402:
395:Ravenmasterq
389:
379:
373:
366:George Leung
361:
360:if shorten,
357:
349:Deltabeignet
344:
334:
326:
280:
268:
248:
236:
220:
172:
159:
147:
141:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
468:Skhatri2005
1121:Lilac Soul
1033:redirected
209:Reputation
181:Reputation
1185:Sandpiper
1107:Nazgul533
1101:into the
1086:Ekjon Lok
722:A Man In
646:Eamon1916
588:Nighthawk
553:¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡
1162:Kazmarov
1042:Kerowren
1019:Kerowren
1010:Kerowren
978:contribs
970:Disavian
736:past ops
732:conspire
637:and the
603:Redirect
516:Carlitos
451:contribs
443:Disavian
345:Redirect
221:Redirect
113:View log
884:Comment
698:Savidan
524:Shorten
500:Epmatsw
498:decide.
476:Comment
427:Claudia
405:- into
393:future.
301:Yannick
273:JForget
261:Yannick
86:protect
81:history
1171:Wafulz
1117:Delete
1082:Delete
1070:Wrawed
1057:Dewarw
888:Dewarw
870:Wafulz
868:post.-
824:Dewarw
819:Delete
771:Wafulz
706:Delete
694:Delete
656:Wafulz
591:Leader
380:Sophia
315:Xammer
285:Xammer
251:Fails
249:Delete
237:Delete
194:Wafulz
160:Delete
133:Wafulz
90:delete
46:delete
1181:Merge
1099:Merge
990:Corpx
949:Corpx
914:(all
845:Auror
805:Auror
750:Auror
746:Keep!
725:Bl♟ck
684:Corpx
580:Merge
572:Corpx
566:that
540:Merge
510:into
508:Merge
463:into
461:Merge
437:into
435:Merge
419:Merge
403:Merge
374:Merge
358:Merge
327:Merge
241:Corpx
229:Carom
173:Merge
165:Tango
107:views
99:watch
95:links
51:ESkog
16:<
1157:Keep
1005:Keep
910:and
896:Keep
631:Keep
619:Keep
564:Note
495:Keep
486:talk
362:keep
336:Will
281:Keep
255:and
142:keep
127:and
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
1039:--
968:. —
605:to
481:DGG
441:. —
223:to
111:– (
981:)
906:,
902:,
734:|
548:*H
544:—
488:)
454:)
333:.
313:).
299:--
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
53:)
1003:*
975:/
972:(
931:k
928:r
925:a
922:M
738:)
730:(
484:(
448:/
445:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.