1193:
no guideline is set in stone, I take that as a very strange interpretation not conforming to anything stated in it. And that basically covers the rest of your argument. There is no "taking these together" when accounting for GNG. There are good sources and poor sources. Poor sources may have some contextual utility in the case that there are plenty of good sources, but poor sources on their own do not make for an article that meets GNG.
1192:
If you think there's flexibility in that wording, I can only say you're blatantly wrong. It very clearly supplies examples of two specific sources and makes no mention of some nebulous overall coverage, allowing the combination of several trivial sources to equal one good source or some such. While
473:
spinoff from the current RfA. The nomination's claim that work is impossible is blatantly false. For example, I recently added a relevant photograph. This was taken in the real world where Potter re-enactment and memorabilia is a billion dollar business – there are entire shops that sell nothing
1077:
stated a preference for it over attempting to improve what can be called the parent article and then later splitting it back out should there be too much weight on the topic. If those sources even count as significant coverage, there is no reason why the one or two paragraphs the topic deserves in
1076:
You've stated multiple times that you disregard GNG's need for per-source significant coverage, and you have not provided anything significant covering the potions of the fictional universe as a whole. You have not provided any argument as to why this page in particular needs to exist. You've just
509:
I think there is sourcing that would support a distinct article on this topic. This article, however, is far from it. So in the end I come out a bit neutral on whether appropriate coverage of this topic is best achieved through a separate article or through coverage as part of a larger topic (i.e.
1036:
or redirect - Though the current proposed target article for merging is also in dire need of either deletion or massive rescue effort, this page in particular lacks the necessary coverage in reliable sources to currently need an article. There is no particular benefit whatsoever to retaining this
1124:
suggests: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Or in this case: create a parent article like "Potions in Harry
613:
not picky if this winds up a redirect or not. In terms of
Knowledge practice, I would ask which is better: 1) Copy-and-paste this into another article and replace it with a redirect, 2) redirect and make sure target had at least a summary of what is in the page, knowing that over time that
797:
803:
1119:
First let's assume for the sake of the argument, that love potion, Veritaserum and
Polyjuice potion in Harry Potter each had coverage in secondary sources (as has been shown above/previously), but not enough to have a separate article each. In such a case
385:
This seems like a Fandom page. Unsourced, written like it's on a depository of information, and about something that doesn't seem to go well on a website like
Knowledge. It's also just a list, and they could all be summed up in one sentence. Per
1166:. Of course there the majority - though not all - of the material is plot-summary. But other secondary sources like "Muggle Magic: Learning Through Play in Harry Potter's World" and others provide the relevant real-world additions. Taking these
535:
just plot summaries. Nothing has changed since the last AFD to convince me that this is a justified spinout article, rather than just having the overall concept of potions in the franchise covered in the main article on magic.
993:. There are some pieces that seem interesting, but having just potions in a Knowledge page would not be ideal. As Arsonxists already mentioned, it seems like it belongs to a Fandom wiki more so than a General Knowledge page.
1160:
820:, though probably it is better off in this list here. Other potions have shorter appearances in secondary sources. So the remaining question is, would the topic better be treated stand-alone, or in expanding the section of
415:
412:
99:
94:
89:
232:
702:
705:. If I'd had my time again I might've just put the content back there and moved the page to a more inclusive title like "Potions and magical objects in Harry Potter" ... that could still be a possibility now.
1058:, those already in the article, as well as those suggested here, and in previous deletion discussions - almost all of which, by the way, were not yet existant at the time of the first deletion discussion.
868:
talks about the philosophical questions raised by the existence of the
Polyjuice Potion. That's as far as I have looked so far. So again, I think the article can be improved to a point to fulfull both
531:
per the same rationale I used in the last AFD. The descriptions for every entry here are just in-universe plot summaries, and the sources that are being used to support that information is
964:
because it is largely unsourced or cited to primary/officially licensed sources. Similarly, those primary sources only cover this in-universe, so there is nothing to write here that isn't
294:
1081:(assuming that can be salvaged) cannot cover them. One or two specific potions being covered to some extent does not provide sufficient reason to have an entire article on the subject.
890:
Is the
Hogwarts' subject of potions also within the scope of this article, as the introduction suggests? Then here's another paper about the real-world impact of the fictional subject:
84:
795:
and contrary to the nomination, that this article indeed can be improved. In a very preliminary search I did not see an encompassing treatment of potions as a group yet, but e.g.
226:
263:
The article has, since it's been reinstated, had none of its issues fixed, and likely won't be able to: it reads much like a list, doesn't meet
Knowledge's notability criteria (
193:
858:
for the indivdual potions, there's enough non-plot information in secondary sources out there. I've already made that point for the love potion with the three sources above.
446:, the only one sufficiently notable for its own section somewhere is the Polyjuice Potion. The problem is I'm not sure where to put that information in a different article.
316:
960:
I wouldn't object to deletion, but there appears to be a growing consensus to at least preserve the history, if not some of the content. This subject doesn't meet the
338:
626:
the page, possibly replacing it with a redirect. I'm not sure which will be best in the long run, those are the options on the table. I'm against option 5.
166:
161:
140:
170:
125:
153:
271:
policy. Because its essentially impossible to frame this article's contents in a real-world perspective, it belongs on the Harry Potter wiki (see
860:
1202:
1187:
1090:
1067:
1046:
1028:
1001:
981:
952:
922:
902:
885:
833:
779:
752:
736:
716:
685:
644:
605:
585:
545:
519:
501:
457:
437:
399:
377:
350:
330:
308:
286:
275:). This has been brought up before, and the promise that the article would be revised A) has not been fulfilled; and, B) cannot be fulfilled.
68:
809:
476:
418:... I'm quite OK with single-sentence descriptors of the potions *somewhere* but I'm not OK with broken links. I'm getting more and more
946:
660:
247:
214:
698:
653:
480:. I have made a start on identifying and using such sources but it's a thankless task while the nay-sayers who complain about
120:
113:
17:
864:
adds more analysis for that, and then goes on to talk about real-world paralells and ethical implications of the
Veritaserum.
741:
Yeah ... was just thinking maybe a name change to something like "magical items in Harry potter" would solve both problems.
679:
638:
208:
157:
659:
The "magical objects" page is several times longer now than it was 15 years ago. There are several other pages on the
134:
130:
1103:
significant coverage, as compared to just overall significant coverage, that's true. If this is stated somewhere in
204:
813:
together (with the primary sources) probably have enough material for a stand-alone article on the love potion in
1225:
775:
614:"summary" may expand and expand until someone decides it's time to split the page, 3) same as 2 but "guard-dog" (
497:
346:
40:
1107:, rather than being an opinion about WP:GNG, please point me there. I don't at all think that I am disregarding
254:
721:
Potions could qualify as magical objects of sorts. To include them as part of the title would be to give them
1155:
977:
941:
918:
732:
581:
453:
149:
74:
1129:
could not also be a good solution, though I am not convinced it would be the best one. But I do think that
601:
1221:
1126:
1078:
1022:
1010:
990:
973:
908:
821:
767:
722:
664:
596:
555:
528:
423:
362:
53:
36:
667:. Should all of them, save those with large out-of-universe/independent-source coverage, be removed?
792:
771:
493:
395:
342:
220:
541:
515:
326:
304:
282:
240:
1183:
1163:
1063:
1037:
content, as nobody has shown anything that justifies more than a few sentence summary elsewhere.
965:
935:
913:
898:
881:
829:
747:
727:
711:
576:
481:
448:
432:
365:. Sources brought up in the last AfD were weak, in passing and almost entirely focused on plot.--
618:) the target to make sure excessive expansion doesn't happen, 4) leave things the way they are (
1149:
995:
873:
847:
675:
634:
371:
109:
56:
to a limited extent, focusing on real-world and sourced information rather than plot summary.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1220:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
842:
sources detailing potions as shown here and in previous deletion discussions, so fullfilling
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1017:
855:
466:
387:
697:
Not quite ... I started the current iteration in 2015 from text that had been removed from
470:
391:
1175:
571:
537:
511:
320:
298:
276:
272:
268:
59:
1013:. Unnecessary CFORK split and it will easily fit into and improve the target article.
1198:
1179:
1171:
1134:
1130:
1121:
1108:
1104:
1086:
1059:
1042:
969:
961:
894:
877:
869:
843:
825:
743:
707:
615:
485:
428:
1170:
to create a reasonalbe stand-alone article again in my opinion is not disregarding
891:
814:
692:
668:
627:
490:
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
367:
187:
422:
about this as time goes on. It's worth noting though that the potions section in
474:
else. And there is extensive literary analysis of the potions in works such as
264:
1054:: The delete !votes so far have ignored the existence of the secondary sources
876:. If it should rather be seen as a list or an article is another question.
1194:
1082:
1038:
558:: one a section for actual potions, and the other one as a subsection of
337:
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
656:
with the edit summary "splitting of
Potions section, article too long".
824:. As that is already large, I would at this time prefer stand-alone.
426:
is about the
Hogwarts subject, not necessarily the actual potions.
599:
and consolidate the paragraphs to one-two sentence bullet points.
390:, I think it really belongs on the Harry Potter Wiki on Fandom.
1216:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
566:
some of the information in this article to a section there, or
484:, don't do any work themselves. The applicable policy here is
492:" As this is clearly possible then that's what we should do.
419:
100:
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (4th nomination)
95:
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (3rd nomination)
90:
Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (2nd nomination)
972:. I do see a decent redirect/merge target as a compromise.
892:
Muggle Magic: Learning Through Play in Harry Potter's World
562:, which is the one that currently exists. We could either
550:
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to have two sections titled
1140:
in such a case (with loss of all the secondary sources).
1150:
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter
657:
295:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
183:
179:
175:
239:
850:
the more serious objection, and I think the article
574:is right in that there is enough sourcing for it.
968:, which is something that Knowledge articles are
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1228:). No further edits should be made to this page.
315:Note: This discussion has been included in the
293:Note: This discussion has been included in the
317:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
253:
85:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter
8:
1143:Second, the topic "Potions in Harry Potter"
854:fails that guideline. But I think if one is
141:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
336:
314:
292:
1125:Potter". Now I don't say that merging to
907:No it isn't, that it covered in full in
866:The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy
798:The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy
339:list of content for rescue consideration
1156:A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World
725:compared with the rest of the article.
701:without being moved anywhere else; See
465:This is a disruptive re-nomination per
82:
559:
551:
368:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
770:, per my comments in the last AfD.
1099:In general I don't see a need for
24:
1147:discussed at some length e.g. in
856:willing to spend the time to look
810:Literary Allusion in Harry Potter
652:in 2005, this was split off from
477:Literary Allusion in Harry Potter
846:should not be a problem. I find
126:Introduction to deletion process
699:magical objects in Harry Potter
654:Magical objects in Harry Potter
570:in order to make it better, if
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1176:why we have these requirements
510:Magic in Harry Potter). Best,
1:
1203:22:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
1188:22:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
1091:14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
1068:12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
1047:20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
1029:08:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
1002:20:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
982:17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
953:02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
923:15:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
909:Magic in Harry Potter#Potions
903:12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
886:12:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
834:20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
780:11:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
753:04:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
737:04:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
717:04:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
686:19:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
645:19:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
606:18:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
586:16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
546:16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
520:16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
502:11:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
458:06:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
438:06:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
400:04:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
378:01:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
363:Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions
351:11:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
331:00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
309:00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
287:00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
267:), and directly violates the
69:08:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
804:The Riddles of Harry Potter
116:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1245:
1138:support wholesale deletion
1218:Please do not modify it.
861:The Ravenclaw Chronicles
32:Please do not modify it.
150:Potions in Harry Potter
80:AfDs for this article:
75:Potions in Harry Potter
1127:Magic in Harry Potter
1079:Magic in Harry Potter
1011:Magic in Harry Potter
991:Magic in Harry Potter
822:Magic in Harry Potter
768:Magic in Harry Potter
665:Template:Harry Potter
597:Magic in Harry Potter
556:Magic in Harry Potter
529:Magic in Harry Potter
424:Magic in Harry Potter
114:Articles for deletion
54:Magic in Harry Potter
1178:in the first place.
560:Subjects at Hogwarts
488:which states that "
1025:
1021:
661:Fictional universe
416:my previous !votes
1056:about the subject
1023:
1015:
958:Redirect or merge
684:
683:
643:
642:
611:Keep edit history
602:ThadeusOfNazereth
353:
333:
311:
131:Guide to deletion
121:How to contribute
67:
1236:
1114:for two reasons:
1027:
998:
949:
944:
934:per Arsonxists ―
750:
714:
696:
673:
672:
632:
631:
604:
435:
374:
323:
301:
279:
258:
257:
243:
191:
173:
111:
66:
64:
57:
34:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1226:deletion review
1174:but looking at
1014:
996:
951:
947:
942:
838:There are many
793:Andrew Davidson
772:Devonian Wombat
748:
712:
703:this discussion
690:
650:Historical note
600:
433:
376:
372:
321:
299:
277:
200:
164:
148:
145:
108:
105:
104:
78:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1242:
1240:
1231:
1230:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1141:
1116:
1115:
1094:
1093:
1071:
1070:
1049:
1031:
1004:
984:
955:
940:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
888:
791:I think, like
782:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
723:WP:UNDUEWEIGHT
647:
608:
590:
589:
588:
522:
504:
460:
440:
402:
380:
366:
355:
354:
334:
312:
273:MOS:INUNIVERSE
261:
260:
197:
144:
143:
138:
128:
123:
106:
103:
102:
97:
92:
87:
81:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1241:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1019:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
999:
992:
988:
985:
983:
979:
975:
974:Shooterwalker
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
954:
950:
945:
939:
938:
937:sportzpikachu
933:
930:
924:
920:
916:
915:
910:
906:
905:
904:
900:
896:
893:
889:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
862:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
816:
812:
811:
806:
805:
800:
799:
794:
790:
786:
783:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
754:
751:
746:
745:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
729:
724:
720:
719:
718:
715:
710:
709:
704:
700:
694:
689:
688:
687:
681:
677:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
651:
648:
646:
640:
636:
629:
625:
621:
617:
612:
609:
607:
603:
598:
594:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
534:
530:
526:
523:
521:
517:
513:
508:
505:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
472:
468:
464:
461:
459:
455:
451:
450:
445:
441:
439:
436:
431:
430:
425:
421:
417:
414:
410:
406:
403:
401:
397:
393:
389:
384:
381:
379:
375:
369:
364:
360:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
332:
328:
324:
318:
313:
310:
306:
302:
296:
291:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
274:
270:
266:
256:
252:
249:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
206:
203:
202:Find sources:
198:
195:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
168:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
146:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
118:
117:
115:
110:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1217:
1215:
1167:
1154:
1148:
1144:
1135:
1111:
1100:
1055:
1051:
1033:
1009:and trim to
1006:
997:Yoshiman6464
994:
986:
957:
936:
931:
912:
865:
859:
852:as it is now
851:
839:
817:
815:Harry Potter
808:
802:
796:
788:
784:
763:
742:
726:
706:
649:
623:
619:
610:
592:
575:
567:
563:
532:
524:
506:
489:
475:
462:
447:
443:
427:
408:
404:
382:
358:
262:
250:
244:
236:
229:
223:
217:
211:
201:
107:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
966:WP:JUSTPLOT
227:free images
1101:per-source
874:WP:ALLPLOT
848:WP:ALLPLOT
469:, being a
392:Arsonxists
373:reply here
62:Sandstein
1222:talk page
840:secondary
622:), or 5)
572:Barkeep49
538:Rorshacma
512:Barkeep49
482:no effort
467:WP:DELAFD
405:Week keep
388:WP:WPINWA
322:Theologus
300:Theologus
278:Theologus
37:talk page
1224:or in a
1180:Daranios
1168:together
1161:found by
1112:in total
1060:Daranios
948:contribs
914:El Millo
895:Daranios
878:Daranios
826:Daranios
728:El Millo
680:contribs
663:line of
639:contribs
577:El Millo
568:draftify
449:El Millo
359:Redirect
194:View log
135:glossary
39:or in a
1052:Comment
1018:Timothy
943:my talk
693:Davidwr
669:davidwr
628:davidwr
552:Potions
507:Comment
442:Mainly
269:WP:PLOT
233:WP refs
221:scholar
167:protect
162:history
112:New to
1172:WP:GNG
1164:Cunard
1131:WP:GNG
1122:WP:GNG
1109:WP:GNG
1105:WP:GNG
1034:Delete
970:WP:NOT
962:WP:GNG
932:Delete
870:WP:GNG
844:WP:GNG
744:Graham
708:Graham
624:delete
616:WP:OWN
494:Andrew
486:WP:ATD
471:pointy
444:delete
429:Graham
383:Delete
343:Andrew
205:Google
171:delete
1133:does
1007:Merge
987:Merge
818:alone
789:merge
764:Merge
593:Merge
564:merge
525:Merge
409:merge
248:JSTOR
209:books
188:views
180:watch
176:links
50:merge
16:<
1199:talk
1184:talk
1153:and
1087:talk
1064:talk
1043:talk
1024:talk
978:talk
919:talk
899:talk
882:talk
872:and
830:talk
807:and
785:Keep
776:talk
733:talk
682:) 🎄
676:talk
641:) 🎄
635:talk
620:keep
582:talk
542:talk
533:also
516:talk
498:talk
463:Keep
454:talk
411:per
396:talk
347:talk
327:talk
305:talk
283:talk
265:WP:N
241:FENS
215:news
184:logs
158:talk
154:edit
1195:TTN
1159:as
1136:not
1083:TTN
1039:TTN
1020:::
1016://
989:to
787:or
766:to
678:)/(
637:)/(
595:to
554:at
527:to
496:🐉(
420:meh
361:to
345:🐉(
255:TWL
192:– (
52:to
1201:)
1186:)
1145:is
1089:)
1066:)
1045:)
980:)
921:)
911:.
901:)
884:)
832:)
801:,
778:)
749:87
735:)
713:87
584:)
544:)
518:)
500:)
456:)
434:87
413:my
398:)
349:)
341:.
329:)
319:.
307:)
297:.
285:)
235:)
186:|
182:|
178:|
174:|
169:|
165:|
160:|
156:|
1197:(
1182:(
1085:(
1062:(
1041:(
976:(
917:(
897:(
880:(
828:(
774:(
731:(
695::
691:@
674:(
671:/
633:(
630:/
580:(
540:(
514:(
452:(
407:/
394:(
370:|
325:(
303:(
281:(
259:)
251:·
245:·
237:·
230:·
224:·
218:·
212:·
207:(
199:(
196:)
190:)
152:(
137:)
133:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.