Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (3rd nomination) - Knowledge

Source 📝

1563:- as unneeded wikia-type fan content which looks at every detail of a fictional world without analysis of its actual importance in the literature or without it. Passing GNG has never been the sole threshold to having a standalone article. I understand that a lot of people are passionate about Harry Potter and there is nothing wrong with that, but there are much better places to get Harry Potter information than WP. I fail to see how a list of potions is central to the literary importance of Harry Potter. There are plenty of HP pages which go into considerable depth and if a potion is important it can and probably should be noted elsewhere, but having a list which literally... lists.. every spell which is mentioned regardless of importance is just a fan activity. WP does not go into depth with tabloid-type content - even though there are always sufficient and in-depth sources. The same can be true here - coverage of something does not mean that we need an article which looks at every detail of the topic. Stats are another example - we avoid having articles which are just stats, even though there are considerable sources which discuss just stats. Instead, we discuss stats on the individual, team, or event pages. Same should be here - the spells can be mentioned but we do not need a list that is just spells. 1413:
remark about the word "ubbly" being a pun on bubbly is, errr, serious analysis? For "Confusing and Befuddlement Draught (also Confusing Concoction)", the analysis is saying that JKR did not invent the concept of the "potion of confusion" and the idea is not novel. Errr. Ok. But again, this is a hard cry from any analysis. We might as well say that the ideas of magical potions is not new, JKR was obviously inspired by previous works and such, so it is notable because... what exactly? The point is, nowehere in this book do I see any non-passing analysis of the concept of potions in Potterverse. It's all plot, plus a few passing remarks that in no way, shape or form meet what I consider to be signifnicant, in-depth analysis of the topic. Nobody is saying that potions in Potterverse, or even Potion XYZ from it, is blah blah literary theory blah blah for any consequential length. Those all, from top to bottom, appear to be mentions in passing, 99% plot-based. And consider that we don't even have an article on
478:. I can believe there is or could be a similar treatment of potions and still think this would thus be notable based on the existing sources and the distinct possibility there are such treatments. Yet I think you have a point. This page is not that treatment. Instead what we have here is largely - no entirely - plot summary. The notable aspects of the subject are not being treated here and this page is more akin to the list of spells (deleted) than the Magic in Harry Potter (retained). As such I think a merge would be highly desirable. There is probably a notable subject here, but this page is not it. Thus I am updating my recommendation to merge. -- 1522:
It's true we deleted List of spells.., which is even more important, and that needs to be reconsidered . Considering the amount of effort we devote --and should devote, as one of the key functions of an encyclopedia-- to covering minor works for which relatively few people have heard but are nonetheless notable, it's peculiar that we don't give adequate coverage to the ones that actually are important. . The way it sometimes looks, we say that
992:(her last). Long before that, Sophocles wrote that Athena tricked Ajax into confusing sheep with men—which is highly inconvenient during war-time! Key ingredients include lovage (historically used as a medicinal tea), scurvy-grass (once a treatment for scurvy or vitamin C deficiency), and sneezewort (a form of yarrow to which many people are allergic). See Chapter 10 for more on these ingredients, all of which you can grow in your backyard. 961:
Anointing of the Sick, also called Last Rites.) Because we don't know the ingredients for this potion, nor do we know anything about Dr. Ubbly, we can only assume that it is a salve of some sort that's intended to make people oblivious to the world around them (and could, therefore, have a strong connection to—or even be the same potion as—a Confusing Concotion) or forget something uncomfortable or terrifying they've seen.
1398:- Cunard, I do not disagree with you (see my !vote above), but the page under discussion does have a problem that it currently only focuses on the plot elements and not the above notable aspects. Deletion is not for clean up, so I stand by my keep/merge !vote, but I would hope that the focus of this article would change in response to this AfD. If not then we will no doubt be seeing 4th nomination before too long. -- 382:
could be done through merge process to allow editors there a chance to consider article size. So then the question is whether either of these should exist, and I notice there are sources in both articles that suggest notability, and potentially many more that can go in available with a google. Scholar and books also show up sources, and these were established in the AfD second nomination
985:
before he checks the clock to see how late he got home; sharing a little with a police officer as he or she is writing him a ticket or to a bank teller or store clerk who is counting out his change; slipping a little to a witness in a court case. A good wizard could easily go bad with powers such as these.
643:: There are six non-fiction works of literary criticism currently cited on the page. Yes, they talk about the plot function, because it's writing about fiction, and you need to discuss the items in the context of the narrative. Also, I agree with Andy Dingley that Clarityfiend's comment about "breaking 1653:
in light of the current Covid-19 pandemic, and of course it's been redirected without merge. I have no less than three dead-tree books which cover that episode, but not the time to put out fires started by those with plenty of time to redirect, but never a finger lifted to improve. I sincerely regret
1421:
doesn't even have an in fiction section, and all we have is this big pile of fancrut that still does not show any connection to non-plot element, and I am sorry, your sources so far do not seem to suggest such connections exist. Please, prove me wrong and cite a paragraph from any of those works that
1412:
I do appreciate your good faithed contributions, Cunard, but if this is the best source, err. I mean, look at the examples posted. I can only assume you chose the best. "Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction" has no " mythological, Biblical, or literary backgroung", it's pure plot, unless you think that the
1470:
product that is applied to the scalp; Skele-Gro is a horrible steaming potion that burns as it goes down and causes the painful regrowing of bones to commence. It is used not to make wizards taller but to regrow limbs that have been severed or otherwise cursed to no longer have working bones in them.
984:
A Confusing and Befuddlement Draught is meant to befuddle and, therefore, distract the user. This potion is likely used on Muggles who have seen possible wizard activities, but think of how a rather evil wizard could find it useful in other situations: pouring a smidgeon into his dad's nightcap just
381:
as the justification for deletion (the list being a non notable plot summary fork). The magic page has a heading and paragraph on potions with a link to this page, making this a sub page of that one. So this page could be merged back into there, but the page is already large. Merge would be fine but
1521:
Cunard has , as is frequently the case, has shown that this meets the technical requirements. Major plot elements in major fiction should have articles, especially when they are complex as this. The depth of the coverage of fictional elements depends upon the cultural importance of the fiction.
1469:
Skele-Gro, a potion of unknown ingredients given to wizards who need to regrow one or more bones, is an apt wordplay on a Muggle product called HairGro, which, like its wizarding counterpart, encourages a part of the human body to grow at unusual rates. HairGro has the advantage of being a topical
960:
To be "oblivious" is to be unaware, and "unction" refers to an oil or salve, usually a soothing or comforting one, used for religious or medicinal purposes. ("Unction" also refers to rubbing into or sprinkling oil onto the body; thus, Extreme Unction is the term used by the Catholic Church for the
944:
The final section of this chapter lists the common potions you'll find in the wizarding world, most of which clean something, cure some ailment, or cause wizards to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if
1448:
Wolfsbane Potion may be the most valuable potion available to wizards: it allows a werewolf to lead a normal life by keeping him or her from transfiguring fully into a werewolf at each full moon—the body still transforms, but the mind doesn’t. The potion’s main ingredient is aconite (also called
385:
which lists plenty of sources. The nom. does not attempt to discuss or refute these sources. The argument about adjusting policy on lists does not alter the fact that there are sources establishing notability. The subject is generally notable, although most sources do tend to use the cultural
1648:
as GNG is met, and anything else involving focusing on the real-world commentary is just cleanup. As far as some of the NOTHERE arguments above, I have found that multiple fiction AfD participants (that is, those inclined to not keep such elements) are entirely unconvinced by the presence of
1452:
Rowling reveals that this potion was invented by "Damocles Belby." (Belby is a town in East Yorkshire, England.) An earlier Damocles was a Greek royal attendant who upset the ruler at that time, Dionysius, and was repaid by having a sword suspended over his head, held there by a single hair.
266:
with elemen ts of OR. There were in the past arguments that it may past LISTN but as recent deletions of many similar lists have demonstrated, we need a discussion that goes beyond plot summaries, and so far nobody has shown anything on this topic that is not 100% a plot summary. Thoughts? A
754:
sigh -- per Andy Dingley, this is part of the indiscriminate nomination of fiction by Piotrus. This is a fundamental core part of the scholarship of Harry Potter -- the Poly-juice potion is a very particular part of how the characters develop, and as ToughPigs points out you already have a
626:. It seems to be in poor shape, but I'd imagine that topic can establish itself. This list is a bunch of trivial plot information. I'd imagine the topic of potions in general warrants a paragraph or two in the main article, but it doesn't appear there is much worth merging at this point. 1526:
even if it meets the WP:N. It's as if we made a agreement to have rules in order to interpret them in the stupidest way possible, just to show how clever we are at being paradoxical. (I used to try to do that a good deal, when I was 5 years old, but now we're almost 21. )
1372:, potions are discussed on pages 150–161. The book notes (my bolding), "The final section of this chapter lists the common potions you'll find in the wizarding world, most of which clean something, cure some ailment, or cause wizards to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. 474:
and multiple other such articles where the cultural relevance of the Potterverse is used to make some other point. But then, what these do not do is that they do not treat the potions as a subject for a treatment on its own, although it turns out that food in HP does get such
964:
One note, however: doctors don't exist in the wizarding world, so this potion may have originated in the Muggle world. "Healer Ubbly" would be more likely, if this were, indeed, a uniquely wizard potion. Ubbly, on the other hand, evokes a strong sense of a bubbly cauldron
1039:
Through a combination of theoretical and practical work, students learn about the preparation and effects of magical potions and substances. They also study poisons and antidotes, and learn about the attributes of different potion ingredients, from everday to the exotic.
52:. I was going to relist this, as it hasn't been yet, but (a) it's been open 13 days already, (b) it's pretty clear that there's absolutely no consensus on what to do, and (c) unlike a number of these types of discussions, reasonable points have been made on all sides. 1149:
This "information external to the work" requirement is clearly met by the first source, which says, "Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary
271:
might be a good compromise. PPS. Also, please consider this article has no reception, development, significance, and the sources used or cited in the past don't contain any suggestion such a section is possible. This is the very definition of non-encyclopedic
447: 408:
notable outside the books. There is next to no referenced content to merge back up anyway. It's overspilled fancruft all the way. PS. The spells would appear, logically, more 'in-universe' notable anyway, and they are already gone, thanks to
1486:
I fail to see anything resembling an in-depth analysis that's not plot related. Saying that JKR used the word Damocles and then retelling the story of real world related legend is not analysis. Neither is a speculation about connection to
780:
mostly plot summary. The actual information from the sources that do provide more can be easily integrated into the main article of magic in the franchise without needing to be split into a separate list of largely non-notable examples.
834:, as the sources here are not used to support anything besides in-universe information, and what little information they can provide would be much better suited over on the Magic page than on this collection of in-universe fancruft. 1457:
With just one nip, a wizard's entire life is changed: there is no cure, and even though the illness can be kept under control, wizards are so afraid of werewolves that they do everything in their power to push them out of polite
1346:
I fail to see how this is in-depth coverage, few mentions in passing, most of it plot-related. If this is the best we have, I can only reaffirm my initial assessment. This is fancruft with not a smudge of real world notability.
1172: 508: 88: 83: 78: 230: 461: 323: 705:
Harry Potter articles, in the context of an AfD, not deleting any articles related to Harry Potter. It shouldn't be inappropriate to say that fancruft that isn't, and will never be notable, should be kept.
1491:. It's like trying to argue that Star Wars is notable solely because it names implies connection to real world notable concept of stars and wars. C'mon. It's clear there are just no good sources here. -- 1439:
Here is sample analysis where the author makes a connection between Wolfsbane Potion's inventor Damocles Belby and the Damocles who was a Greek royal attendant (my bolding of the key piece of analysis):
1734:
there's enough of them that I don't see the value of a merge - will just result in something that needs splitting. Enough have usages in the common vernacular now that I don;t see sourcing as an issue.
261:
There are many notable elements of the Harry Potter verse. But I have doubts that the list of fictional potions used in it is one of them. I don't see any evidence this topics passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure
1290: 414: 277: 300: 73: 1631:
per Cunard's sound analysis. Most of the delete !votes are simply arguments that an encyclopedia should not be encyclopedic or unsound efforts to evade the plain terms of the GNG.
1374:
Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background.
224: 738:
for being a mere plot summary. Having secondary sources that repeat facts that can be found in the plot, doesn't establish notability. However, it's possible that this is a
183: 190: 1144: 1140: 860: 799: 156: 151: 130: 160: 115: 1147:
information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".
386:
relevance of Harry Potter to make other wider points. Yet they do mention the potions and the magic. The subject is notable outside of the books. --
143: 471: 1675:. This page seems too specific and can be easily be included in here. It also seems like specific fan-content, like something you would find on 1417:, as far as I can tell, this literary device has not been analyzed much, through maybe as a general trope it is notable. But so far article on 1270: 1105: 854: 1744: 1726: 1697: 1663: 1640: 1623: 1592: 1571: 1555: 1538: 1503: 1481: 1434: 1407: 1389: 1359: 1341: 1283: 1161: 1130: 843: 811: 790: 764: 746: 718: 692: 674: 656: 635: 614: 573: 551: 530: 487: 429: 395: 383: 358: 338: 315: 292: 56: 1449:
monkshood and wolfsbane), a member of the buttercup family that has long been used in small quantities for medicinal purposes—see Chapter 10.
1654:
that taking care of actual living humans as a medical provider has curtailed my Knowledge presence and participation, but it is what it is.
1633:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!
245: 212: 1242: 1214: 1186: 1636: 110: 103: 17: 1455:
Thus the term "the sword of Damocles" refers to an impending tragedy, which is exactly how wizards must feel about werewolves.
1692: 1256: 1200: 1012: 917: 1378:
The "additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background" for each potion means this is not primarily "plot-related".
894:." I will show below that "potions in Harry Potter" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources". 1649:
dead-tree, written, independently published secondary sources which cover fictional elements. I logged in today to review
1117: 988:
Confusing potions aren't unique to the wizarding world. George Eliot wrote about a "confusing potion" in her 1876 novel,
206: 1608:
in the outside world (deep coverage by reliable secondary sources and impact in popular culture) has not been proven. --
147: 124: 120: 202: 1632: 1264: 1113: 1064:
Presumably boosts brain power. It is sold as a black-market concentration and study aid for OWL and NEWT students.
476: 1761: 1564: 1294: 1228: 839: 410: 40: 1588: 776:. The current article is entirely just plot summary. The sources on most of the individual examples here are 598: 252: 519:
re the Tolkien universe for things that aren't mentioned in the redirect target weaken my position somewhat.
444:
My apologies, I spoke imprecisely. I did not think what you said about plot summaries applied to these refs:
1719: 807: 377:] I did not disagree with that deletion, so I went there to check the deletion reasons and found mention of 139: 62: 1546:
as a GNG pass, per the excellent case laid out by Cunard. It's a pretty simple call based on that, really.
670: 665:
Next time, try to get the quote right. I said nothing about getting rid of all the Harry Potter articles.
569: 547: 354: 1757: 1706: 1672: 1601: 1580: 1260: 823: 773: 735: 623: 586: 378: 372: 268: 36: 886:, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed 1616: 1605: 1583:- Personally, I am big Potter fan, but this belongs in a specific Potterverse site, not Knowledge. 1236: 1208: 1180: 1109: 890:
by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a
883: 868: 835: 218: 53: 1414: 1584: 1403: 1322: 786: 688: 652: 483: 391: 238: 404:
summaries. No analysis of literary significance, development, reception. The subject is very much
1712: 1680: 1659: 1473: 1381: 1275: 1250: 1194: 1153: 1122: 803: 525: 273: 1551: 1497: 1428: 1422:
engages not primarily with plot but with some real world elements, literary theory or such. --
1353: 1335: 1314: 1027: 1009: 999: 973: 969: 949: 932: 914: 904: 712: 666: 608: 590: 565: 561: 543: 423: 350: 332: 309: 286: 99: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1756:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1488: 454: 375:
My initial thought was delete per a deletion years ago of the list of spells in Harry Potter.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1477: 1385: 1279: 1157: 1126: 1099:
Very powerful sleeping potion containing powdered root of asphodel and infusion of wormwood.
760: 1609: 1232: 1204: 1176: 891: 831: 594: 512: 400:"The nom. does not attempt to discuss or refute these sources." But I did. They are all 1740: 1399: 1078:
Contains crushed snake fangs, dried nettles, stewed horned slugs, and porcupine quills.
876: 827: 782: 684: 648: 479: 401: 387: 263: 826:, which itself needs to be cleaned up to remove egregious fancruft. The article fails 280:
is already gone, it's surprising the potions are holding on better than the spells...
1684: 1655: 1534: 1369: 1302: 1246: 1222: 1190: 910: 743: 739: 631: 521: 945:
known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background.
349:
per nom. The Tolkiencruft hunt appears to have abated. Now on to break the Pottery.
1547: 1493: 1424: 1349: 1331: 1326: 708: 604: 419: 328: 305: 282: 538:
This is just yet another "delete anything and everything to do with fiction". And
177: 515:
comments in that nom. However, the deletion of the list of spells and the recent
1461:
Here is more analysis connecting a Harry Potter potion to a real-world product:
1318: 756: 601:. Nothing indicates that the potions of Harry Potter are independently notable. 540:" The Tolkiencruft hunt appears to have abated. Now on to break the Pottery. " 1736: 1310: 1298: 1005: 1001:
A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring the Harry Potter Universe
1071:
Stone found in a goat's stomach that will save a person from most poisons.
1050:
Makes the drinker a little or a lot older, depending on how much is drunk.
1529: 1306: 1218: 627: 1604:
under a "Potion brewing" section (not even merge the whole list), since
1173:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (2nd nomination)
1092:
It reduces objects that have been inflated back to their original size.
755:
significant coverage in several major sources in the article already.
470:
My comments (with associated caveats) also applied to sources such as
1418: 1141:
Knowledge:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information
1524:
if something is notable by common sense, that's a reason to delete,
879:
will be available and will ideally be included on article creation.
1676: 875:, the rule of thumb is that if the topic is sufficiently notable, 324:
list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
1752:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1291:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of spells in Harry Potter
980:
Confusing and Befuddlement Draught (also Confusing Concoction)
415:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_spells_in_Harry_Potter
278:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_spells_in_Harry_Potter
89:
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (4th nomination)
84:
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (3rd nomination)
79:
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (2nd nomination)
871:
to warrant articles specifically about them. As mentioned
861:
Knowledge:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Notability
742:
case, in which case I prefer redirection over deletion. –
1289:
Good idea to bring more people in. Pinging the mentioned
1650: 1366:
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter
906:
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter
516: 301:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
173: 169: 165: 237: 853:
per the significant coverage in multiple independent
1110:Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1764:). No further edits should be made to this page. 798:Note: This discussion has been included in the 322:Note: This discussion has been included in the 299:Note: This discussion has been included in the 701:No, it isn't. It's clear he refers to deleting 251: 74:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter 8: 1057:Presumably makes the drinker speak nonsense. 131:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 1112:, which requires "significant coverage in 872: 800:list of Lists-related deletion discussions 797: 683:Struck the "all", still inappropriate. -- 321: 298: 542:is so WP:NOTHERE it should be TBANable. 456:The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy 940:Common Draughts, Potions, and Antidotes 71: 884:Knowledge:Notability#Stand-alone lists 1494:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1425:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1350:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1332:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 420:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 329:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 306:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 283:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 7: 449:Harry Potter and the Classical World 867:All fictional topics must meet the 69: 647:the Pottery" is inappropriate. -- 24: 1085:Presumably befuddles the drinker. 968:Here is a second sample entry on 859:The subject passes the guideline 1104:There is sufficient coverage in 472:Dumbledore's advice to Law Deans 116:Introduction to deletion process 267:SOFTDELETE through REDIRECT to 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1069:bezoar (pronounced "bez-war"): 1: 1329:. (Not pinging myself :D). -- 1108:to allow the subject to pass 956:Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction 269:Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions 1651:Confessions and Lamentations 347:Use the disappearing potion 106:(AfD)? Read these primers! 1781: 1745:03:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1727:06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1698:02:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1664:23:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 1641:12:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 1624:14:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1593:06:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1572:12:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1556:09:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1539:05:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1504:08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1482:09:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1435:08:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1408:08:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1390:06:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1360:06:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1342:08:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1284:04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1162:04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1131:04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 948:Here is a sample entry on 844:02:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 812:02:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 791:17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 765:12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 719:15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 693:15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 463:Harry Potter and the Bible 413:, tnx for pointing to the 57:22:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 1705:I also think redirect to 1295:User:El cid, el campeador 747:16:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 675:21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 657:18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 636:18:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 615:16:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 574:21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 552:14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 531:09:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 488:15:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 430:08:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 411:User:El cid, el campeador 396:08:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 359:08:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 339:06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 316:06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 293:06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 1754:Please do not modify it. 1097:Draught of Living Death: 1062:Baruffio's Brain Elixir: 32:Please do not modify it. 903:Stouffer, Tere (2007). 140:Potions in Harry Potter 63:Potions in Harry Potter 1709:is a logical solution. 1472: 1460: 1101: 998:Boyle, Fionna (2004). 994: 967: 947: 881: 68:AfDs for this article: 1707:Magic in Harry Potter 1673:Magic in Harry Potter 1602:Magic in Harry Potter 1581:Magic in Harry Potter 1462: 1441: 1083:Confusing Concoction: 1032: 977: 953: 937: 869:notability guidelines 865: 824:Magic in Harry Potter 774:Magic in Harry Potter 736:Magic in Harry Potter 624:Magic in Harry Potter 587:Magic in Harry Potter 517:lot of redirect noms 379:Magic in Harry Potter 373:Magic in Harry Potter 104:Articles for deletion 1669:Merge & Redirect 1606:Knowledge:Notability 1567:‡ Єl Cid of Valencia 1143:notes: "Examples of 770:Merge & Redirect 1323:User:Deathlibrarian 1076:Boil-curing potion: 882:The subject passes 276:, I am afraid. PS. 1090:Deflating Draught: 1055:Babbling Beverage: 1026:The book notes on 931:The book notes on 560:Just what part of 1725: 1689: 1364:In the 2007 book 1315:User:Clarityfiend 888:as a group or set 877:secondary sources 814: 716: 612: 599:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 564:have I violated? 341: 318: 121:Guide to deletion 111:How to contribute 54:Black Kite (talk) 1772: 1724: 1722: 1717: 1710: 1696: 1687: 1621: 1614: 1569: 1500: 1444:Wolfsbane Potion 1431: 1356: 1338: 1261:Northamerica1000 1120:of the subject". 1114:reliable sources 1106:reliable sources 1024: 1022: 1021: 929: 927: 926: 892:stand-alone list 855:reliable sources 707: 603: 593:list that fails 528: 426: 335: 312: 289: 256: 255: 241: 193: 181: 163: 101: 34: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1762:deletion review 1720: 1713: 1711: 1695: 1683: 1617: 1610: 1565: 1502: 1498: 1433: 1429: 1358: 1354: 1340: 1336: 1019: 1017: 1015: 1008:. pp. 192–195. 997: 965:(ubbly-bubbly). 924: 922: 920: 913:. pp. 150–161. 902: 863:, which notes: 836:Devonian Wombat 717: 622:or redirect to 613: 585:or redirect to 526: 428: 424: 337: 333: 314: 310: 291: 287: 198: 189: 154: 138: 135: 98: 95: 93: 66: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1778: 1776: 1767: 1766: 1748: 1747: 1729: 1700: 1691: 1666: 1643: 1626: 1595: 1585:Deathlibrarian 1574: 1558: 1541: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1492: 1468: 1467: 1447: 1446: 1423: 1415:magical potion 1410: 1348: 1344: 1330: 1293:participants: 1175:participants: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1135: 1134: 1103: 1102: 1048:Ageing Potion: 1013: 995: 990:Daniel Deronda 918: 896: 895: 847: 846: 816: 815: 794: 793: 767: 749: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 706: 696: 695: 678: 677: 660: 659: 638: 617: 602: 579: 578: 577: 576: 555: 554: 533: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 468: 467: 466: 459: 452: 435: 434: 433: 432: 418: 361: 343: 342: 327: 319: 304: 281: 259: 258: 195: 134: 133: 128: 118: 113: 96: 94: 92: 91: 86: 81: 76: 70: 67: 65: 60: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1777: 1765: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1723: 1718: 1716: 1715:GizzyCatBella 1708: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1694: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1667: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1652: 1647: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1625: 1622: 1620: 1615: 1613: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1596: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1575: 1573: 1570: 1568: 1562: 1559: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1542: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1525: 1520: 1517: 1505: 1501: 1495: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1459: 1456: 1450: 1445: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1426: 1420: 1416: 1411: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1370:Penguin Group 1368:published by 1367: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1357: 1351: 1345: 1343: 1339: 1333: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303:User:Jclemens 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1142: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1100: 1098: 1093: 1091: 1086: 1084: 1079: 1077: 1072: 1070: 1065: 1063: 1058: 1056: 1051: 1049: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1036: 1031: 1029: 1028:pages 192–193 1016: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 996: 993: 991: 986: 982: 981: 975: 971: 966: 962: 958: 957: 951: 946: 942: 941: 936: 934: 921: 916: 912: 911:Penguin Group 908: 907: 901: 900: 899: 893: 889: 885: 880: 878: 874: 870: 864: 862: 856: 852: 849: 848: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 818: 817: 813: 809: 805: 804:Coolabahapple 801: 796: 795: 792: 788: 784: 779: 775: 771: 768: 766: 762: 758: 753: 750: 748: 745: 741: 737: 733: 730: 729: 720: 714: 710: 704: 700: 699: 698: 697: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 672: 668: 664: 663: 662: 661: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 639: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 618: 616: 610: 606: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 581: 580: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 558: 557: 556: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 534: 532: 529: 524: 523: 518: 514: 511:, along with 510: 507:per my !vote 506: 502: 499: 498: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 464: 460: 458: 457: 453: 451: 450: 446: 445: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 431: 427: 421: 416: 412: 407: 403: 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 384: 380: 376: 374: 370: 367: 366: 362: 360: 356: 352: 348: 345: 344: 340: 336: 330: 325: 320: 317: 313: 307: 302: 297: 296: 295: 294: 290: 284: 279: 275: 270: 265: 254: 250: 247: 244: 240: 236: 232: 229: 226: 223: 220: 217: 214: 211: 208: 204: 201: 200:Find sources: 196: 192: 188: 185: 179: 175: 171: 167: 162: 158: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136: 132: 129: 126: 122: 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 105: 100: 90: 87: 85: 82: 80: 77: 75: 72: 64: 61: 59: 58: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1753: 1751: 1731: 1714: 1702: 1668: 1645: 1628: 1618: 1611: 1597: 1576: 1566: 1560: 1543: 1528: 1523: 1518: 1464: 1463: 1454: 1451: 1443: 1442: 1395: 1380: 1377: 1373: 1365: 1327:User:Carrite 1274: 1267: 1253: 1239: 1225: 1211: 1197: 1183: 1152: 1150:background." 1148: 1121: 1096: 1094: 1089: 1087: 1082: 1080: 1075: 1073: 1068: 1066: 1061: 1059: 1054: 1052: 1047: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1025: 1018:. Retrieved 1000: 989: 987: 983: 979: 978: 963: 959: 955: 954: 943: 939: 938: 930: 923:. Retrieved 909:. New York: 905: 897: 887: 866: 858: 850: 819: 777: 769: 751: 731: 702: 667:Clarityfiend 644: 640: 619: 582: 566:Clarityfiend 544:Andy Dingley 539: 535: 520: 513:PWilkinson's 504: 500: 462: 455: 448: 405: 368: 364: 363: 351:Clarityfiend 346: 260: 248: 242: 234: 227: 221: 215: 209: 199: 186: 97: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 1681:WP:FANCRUFT 1679:. Textbook 1400:Sirfurboy🏄 1319:User:Aoba47 1118:independent 1004:. Toronto: 703:non-notable 480:Sirfurboy🏄 388:Sirfurboy🏄 274:WP:FANCRUFT 225:free images 1499:reply here 1430:reply here 1355:reply here 1337:reply here 1233:Lord Opeth 1205:PWilkinson 1177:Hammersoft 1020:2016-06-18 1014:155022655X 925:2016-06-18 919:1440636613 597:, and per 591:WP:ALLPLOT 562:WP:NOTHERE 475:treatment! 425:reply here 334:reply here 311:reply here 288:reply here 1758:talk page 1465:Skele-Gro 1311:User:Reyk 1299:User:Artw 1116:that are 1006:ECW Press 783:Rorshacma 685:Toughpigs 649:Toughpigs 509:last time 37:talk page 1760:or in a 1703:Redirect 1688:Ping me! 1685:dibbydib 1656:Jclemens 1598:Redirect 1577:Redirect 1458:society. 1396:Comment' 1307:User:TTN 1271:contribs 1257:contribs 1247:Jclemens 1243:contribs 1229:contribs 1215:contribs 1201:contribs 1191:Graham87 1187:contribs 1171:Pinging 974:page 153 970:page 152 950:page 152 933:page 150 832:WP:LISTN 744:sgeureka 732:Redirect 595:WP:LISTN 184:View log 125:glossary 39:or in a 1548:Carrite 1489:HairGro 1259:), and 1035:Potions 898:Sources 873:earlier 828:WP:PLOT 709:ZXCVBNM 605:ZXCVBNM 402:WP:PLOT 264:WP:PLOT 231:WP refs 219:scholar 157:protect 152:history 102:New to 1677:Fandom 1561:Delete 1474:Cunard 1419:Potion 1382:Cunard 1276:Cunard 1154:Cunard 1145:useful 1123:Cunard 757:Sadads 740:WP:TNT 620:Delete 583:Delete 522:Graham 203:Google 161:delete 1619:۞pΔth 1535:talk 820:Merge 505:merge 417:. -- 371:with 369:Merge 246:JSTOR 207:books 191:Stats 178:views 170:watch 166:links 16:< 1741:talk 1737:Artw 1732:Keep 1660:talk 1646:Keep 1637:talk 1629:Keep 1612:LoĐŻd 1589:talk 1552:talk 1544:Keep 1519:Keep 1478:talk 1404:talk 1386:talk 1325:and 1280:talk 1265:talk 1251:talk 1237:talk 1223:talk 1209:talk 1195:talk 1181:talk 1158:talk 1127:talk 1010:ISBN 972:and 915:ISBN 851:Keep 840:talk 830:and 808:talk 787:talk 778:also 761:talk 752:Keep 713:TALK 689:talk 671:talk 653:talk 641:Keep 632:talk 609:TALK 570:talk 548:talk 536:Keep 501:Keep 484:talk 392:talk 365:Keep 355:talk 239:FENS 213:news 174:logs 148:talk 144:edit 1671:to 1600:to 1579:to 1530:DGG 1245:), 1231:), 1219:DGG 1217:), 1203:), 1189:), 1043:... 1040:... 822:to 772:to 734:to 645:all 628:TTN 503:or 406:not 253:TWL 182:– ( 1743:) 1721:🍁 1662:) 1639:) 1591:) 1554:) 1537:) 1480:) 1406:) 1388:) 1347:-- 1321:, 1317:, 1313:, 1309:, 1305:, 1301:, 1297:, 1282:) 1273:). 1160:) 1129:) 1095:* 1088:* 1081:* 1074:* 1067:* 1060:* 1053:* 1046:* 1030:: 976:: 952:: 935:: 842:) 810:) 802:. 789:) 763:) 691:) 673:) 655:) 634:) 589:. 572:) 550:) 527:87 486:) 394:) 357:) 326:. 303:. 233:) 176:| 172:| 168:| 164:| 159:| 155:| 150:| 146:| 1739:( 1693:✏ 1690:/ 1658:( 1635:( 1587:( 1550:( 1533:( 1496:| 1476:( 1427:| 1402:( 1384:( 1376:" 1352:| 1334:| 1278:( 1268:· 1263:( 1254:· 1249:( 1240:· 1235:( 1226:· 1221:( 1212:· 1207:( 1198:· 1193:( 1184:· 1179:( 1156:( 1125:( 1023:. 928:. 857:. 838:( 806:( 785:( 759:( 715:) 711:( 687:( 669:( 651:( 630:( 611:) 607:( 568:( 546:( 482:( 422:| 390:( 353:( 331:| 308:| 285:| 257:) 249:· 243:· 235:· 228:· 222:· 216:· 210:· 205:( 197:( 194:) 187:· 180:) 142:( 127:) 123:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
Black Kite (talk)
22:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Potions in Harry Potter
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (2nd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Potions in Harry Potter
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑