Please discuss candidates for deletion here

Archived discussions

Lists of archived discussions and their results. Sorted by year in which the discussion started.


File:Photo on 25-11-2015 at 7.58 am.jpg

Articles on horse and cat variants

I know that most articles of these have existed for months, but I think that articles on the horse Patronuses on Pottermore should all be redirected to horse.

We don't have articles on individual genders, just one for each species. I remember that we also merged bull and cow, which is also the same animal, but male and female.

We also could merge the pony and drafthorse articles I created myself

The same applies for the different colours. Having a different coat colour doesn't make them a different species.

The only exceptions I think are various breeds, for example the winged horse breeds.--Rodolphus (talk) 08:31, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

Bumping.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:27, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that Piebald Mare and the like need to be merged into Horse as well as the articles like Tabby Cat into cat, and the original pages redirected to the species page. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:27, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
I think many of the articles in question may warrant separate articles. There is certainly a precedent for it. After all, we have Corgi, Jack Russell terrier, Pekingese and other articles on individual dog breeds. The distinction between a unique breed and a variant in colouration or other characteristics is often fuzzy. I think Wikipedia is probably a useful baseline for determining what warrants a separate article. Wikipedia has articles on tabby cats and piebald horses because these coat types are considered distinct enough to warrant independent coverage even if "tabby cat" and "piebald horse" aren't considered breeds. Piebald Stallion and Piebald Mare could be consolidated into "Piebald horse" or simply "Piebald". We have articles on far more trivial things and I don't see an issue with these having independent articles. Although I do think the Patronus form articles could do with a bit of cleaning up. Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:58, August 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless the descriptions include magic, redirect each to the corresponding Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:54, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

Human hair

The appearance section is so ridiculously long that it can only be based on every single time that human hair appears or is mentioned, which, given that baldness is an exceptional trait, applies to pretty much every character. Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:40, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

That's right. We also have articles on other kinds of hair and its magical uses though. Cat hair, Veela hair, Puffskein hair which alsi etail on the tole of hair in magic. Shouldn't we delete them all then?--Rodolphus (talk) 08:17, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

We could shrink the appearance section down to only include the appearances involving hair-related magic.--Rodolphus (talk) 08:37, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that Veela hair etc. are only referenced within canon in a magical context. Thus, information on them is relevant to the plot or world of the Potter series, not merely incidental trivia. Human hair is visible in every scene in the films featuring a person, and implicitly present in every scene in the books if it's not directly mentioned, so it's incidental in the same way as eyes, skin, air, and sunlight.
The article, as it stands, is in dire need of clean-up. The appearances section needs to be streamlined along the lines you've suggested, because the current indiscriminate laundry list, at best, is unhelpful and cluttering, and, at worst, is inviting crufty or trolling additions to the article.
There also needs to be a structure. A bunch of single-sentence paragraphs is messy and unhelpful. There should probably be a section on the use of human hair in potions, a section on spells and magical products used to style hair, etc. Maybe a section of listing characters by hair colour, which, yes, is trivial, but it would also be useful (from a HP fan perspective) and interesting in the same way as the list of characters who wear spectacles or characters by zodiac signs are. Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:21, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on all off these points. Sorry for my bad English. Maybe someone could help structure it?--Rodolphus (talk) 09:35, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

It's okay. There's always plenty of tasks to do on a wiki if creating articles isn't one's strong point. For now trimming down the "Appearances" section is probably a good place to start. I might give fleshing out the article a go at some point, but unfortunately my backlog for this site is huge, and I don't have as much free time as I once did. Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:40, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Person infobox -- again

Ilvermorny shack

Beauty and the Beast

Not OP here, but I'd vote for keeping it. Even if not by name, it's clear what fairy-tale is being referred to, and the page is decently written. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 22:41, January 5, 2018 (UTC)


Do we really need an article on the concept of fining someone? I could vaguely see it being a list of times people have been fined and the amounts and such, but we could have similar lists for any number of things. And we don't have articles on imprisonment or loss of privileges or any other similar topics. Even Hogwarts detentions, a subject which gets far more coverage and is fairly different than at your average Muggle school, just rates a section at Discipline at Hogwarts. Surely in its current state, at least, the article is not really anything worthwhile. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:41, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

The idea of deleting this article is fine by me (sorry;)) — evilquoll (talk) 20:37, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
We have articles on far more incidental subjects. Any discrete subject potentially warrants its own article. I don't see this article's subject as being too trivial/incidental to warrant independent coverage. I just think that this article needs some work to expand it into something more in line with our mission. Adding a list of all fines issued within the course of the books, films, etc. would be a good place to start. Starstuff (Owl me!) 20:12, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Naughty Muggle

Harry Potter Conspiracies‎‎

This article was recently created, and I don't think it's very article-worthy in its current state (no offense to the author of course, just constructive criticism). However, with some more focus and a rename (maybe something like List of Harry Potter fan theories), I think this could be a viable article. Ideally, I'd see it as something along the lines of the article I recently made on Shipping, covering fan theories that have been (one way or the other) discussed by Rowling, perhaps even expanding into theories with widespread community support (as would be shown by citations showing they've been discussed on prominent Harry Potter fansites like MuggleNet or the Leaky Cauldron). -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:13, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there would be value in having an article covering prominent Harry Potter fan theories. Plenty of fan theories have emerged over the years (Snape being a vampire is a popular one that springs to mind) and some have even been addressed by J. K. Rowling in interviews or on her official site. It would be useful to lay out the reasoning behind popular fan theories and collect JKR's statements on them in one place. But, as you say, everything would have to be properly cited, and ideally there would be sources establishing that a theory has gained widespread traction in the fandom, and isn't just one random fan's idea.
That said, I deleted the "Harry Potter Conspiracies" article, as it didn't strike me as workable. Starstuff (Owl me!) 20:03, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

File:17438137 1796759857309847 5582698409459974144 n.jpg

Jessica Bolzon

IMDb is an unreliable source at the best of times, and their page for this actress no longer seems to exist, nor is she mentioned on the site's cast list. I'm thinking that (somehow) "Jessica Bolzon" was some sort of confusion with Jessica Williams. Anyway, with no currently available source, this seems to be a pretty clear-cut deletion. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:48, November 22, 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. The IMDb page definitely existed yesterday. Which doesn't alter the fact that our latest vandal was wrong to blank the page, as this is the vandal way to do a delete nomination, not the correct way. — evilquoll (talk) 18:21, November 22, 2017 (UTC)
Since the link is obsolete, I've tagged it for needing verification. If nothing is provided within a week, it gets deleted. - Nick O'Demus 03:41, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all concerned that it is now 8 days since the {Verify} tag was slapped on this article. — evilquoll (talk) 07:28, December 1, 2017 (UTC)


  • Somoeone's cartoonish CGI idea of a witch? Delete it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, November 28, 2017 (UTC)

State Prison


The filename means "New game from Scott left a new nightmare baby FNAF 6". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, March 20, 2018 (UTC)

Dementor who attacked Harry Potter (I)

I don't think this page ought to be deleted. We know rather more about that Dementor than we know (or are ever likely to know) about a lot of characters in the Unidentified individuals category. Moreover, it is far from proven that Dementors cannot have individual characteristics — take, precisely, the fact that this Dementor showed abilities for wandless magic displayed by no other Dementors in the books or films. I opened a Discussion on the Discuss board a few days ago about whether I should go ahead and create such pages, and the responses I got were all positive. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 18:38, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. The page portrays them as a person, who can be male or female, that has it's own thoughts capable of independence, brotherhood and loyalty, and is in essence, an individual being when Dementors were always portrayed as dark creatures who act and operate as one, incapable of loyalty and independent thought, who merely feed and were never described as "he" or "she". The page is one big assumption, portraying Dementors in a wrong light. Dementors, as they always were in both the books and films, are portrayed as one being, not separate individuals, who need only be written about on one page, i.e. Dementors. I support the deletion proposal.
In the future, I would not seek advice on the running of the wikia from anywhere else but the editing side of things - you need to propose your ideas here. - Poppy13 (talk) 19:06, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
While it is true that Dementors have no biological gender, it is just as much an assumption to treat them as one being as it is not to. We never see Grindylows or Veelas acting individually, but that doesn't make them a hive mind any more than Dementors. And as you can see on the Dementor page, it is clear that Dementors are at least somewhat sentient, and possibly fully sapient, so yes, they canonically "have their own thoughts". I stand by my original position that this, and other pages about individual Dementors, fully have their place here. While seeing them as a hive mind is imaginable, it is not any more canon than the obvious position of seeing them as individual monsters belonging to a single species. The only things I'm willing take away here are that the "he" in the article may have to be replaced with "it" or "them", and that, yes, in the future, I will present my suggestions elswhere than on the Discuss (but then, the Deletion place is hardly the place to talk about page creations… so where?)
- Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 19:23, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
I'm rather neutral on the existence of the page. I suppose I weakly support its existence if only because its no different than having pages on individual giants/goblins/boggarts/etc. But I can agree, at least, that there's no canon that I'm aware of to indicate that Dementors are a hivemind. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:38, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
 : I stand by my original comments and by the deletion. You portray the Dementor as having individual and independent thought, that it chooses to stand by it's comrades and be loyal and independent. That is wrong. They canonically merely sense food and feed on it, and work as one and not individuals. Like I said, you are making assumptions. There are no pages for an individual Grindylow or Veela. There is no need.
Furthermore, there are other problems. They have no job. They go where food is a given, but they are not employed. As the Dementor page states, they are "soulless and evil", "hold no true loyalty", they merely feed. They are never shown to have independent and individual thought, in fact, the opposite is shown. The entire page feels like a wrong portrayal of what Dementors are. They are not living, breathing beings at all. They are like nothing else. - Poppy13 (talk) 19:43, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
But that too is just inference from the limited glimpse we get of Dementors in canon — the collectives of Dementors we see act as a group, but again, that is just as easily explained by good pack coordination, or simply the fact that they all wanted the same thing.
… So anyway, if we're counting votes in, we have 1 against deletion, 1 for deletion, and 1 neutral-leaning-on-keeping-it. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 19:48, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the one making assumptions. I am going by what we actually know, what Rowling has stated and how they are actually portrayed. A Dementor is just a Dementor. - Poppy13 (talk) 19:52, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
Just going to point out that Dementors and boggarts are both the same type of creature and therefore all your arguments should apply to them as well. And yet we currently have plenty of pages on individual boggarts. 19:58, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I see no need for individual pages for every Dementor, feels like baggage when every piece of information is already written on the only page it really needs to be written on. But if we are going to keep it, the page would need to be heavily rewritten. But given how Dementors are portrayed in the books, it still feels wrong to treat them as individuals. - Poppy13 (talk) 20:02, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the deletion. Evem if making a page for each and every Dementor appearing on screen, there seems to have been quite some time and effort into making sure the information on it is accurate. In my opinion, too much effort for it to be deleted just like that. Other dementor pages, on the other hand.. Overkill. Ninclow (talk) 21:48, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the support (OP here). As for other Dementor pages, I never meant pages about all onscreen Dementors or anything like that — only this and possibly the two who attacked Harry and Dudley, those seemed notable by the same token as this one. (They would have been "Dementor who attacked Harry Potter (II)" and "(III)", respectively, hence the "(I)" in this page's title).) I was of course withholding creation of those pages until the discusson of this one cleared up. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 22:35, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
I oppose the deletion. I have tided up the page a bit for clarity and spelling and it's okay now imo. A lot of effort went into it from the OP in particular and it seems like a waste to just delete it. There are separate pages for creatures who perform their own, notable actions and the one on the train is one such event. - Kates39 (talk) 22:23, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this article adds much, so I am weakly for deletion (along with some cited examples of similar articles) but I am not particularly bothered with its existence. I am, however, strongly opposed to the name, since, unlike what is depicted in the film, this Dementor does not attack Harry (Harry just happens to pass out because he's more susceptible to Dementors).
At any rate, it should be said, insensitive as though it may sound, that how much effort someone puts into drafting an article is not a valid reason to keep it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:03, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
Would Dementor on the Train be a better name for the article? - Kates39 (talk) 11:13, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
Not really, there were lots of Dementors on the train. Perhaps "First Dementor Harry Potter met"? "Dementor who searched Harry Potter's compartment"? I would have named it "Dementor who attacked Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger and Remus Lupin", but that was awfully cumbersome. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 11:19, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
Well, we never meet the other Dementors on the train. There wouldn't be any confusion about what Dementor the article is referring too. The book does later reference "the Dementor on the train". And like Seth said, using the word "attacked" is the thing that needs to be changed. "Dementor who searched Harry Potter's compartment" is another good alternative though. - Kates39 (talk) 11:32, January 6, 2018 (UTC)

Er… sorry for asking, but why is that discussion still open? It's been months, a majority agreed to keep the page… so…? Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 14:06, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

Several pages by User:Lbluck8

The ones flagged for deletion, at least. Possibly the others, especially since this user has removed the delete tag from at least one article without any attempt at discussion. — evilquoll (talk) 23:48, January 18, 2018 (UTC)

File:Kit Wennerbom.jpeg

Fanon/vanity picture uploaded by our resident Gilderoy Lockhart clone just before he got blocked. — evilquoll (talk) 23:51, January 18, 2018 (UTC)

Giggle Water

Magical Congress of the United States of America work conduct code

Ravenclaw Boys' Dormitory

Harry Potter And The Cursed Child 2018 Movie Trailer HD

How on earth did this rubbish manage to stay on this wiki for 9 months, before another editor finally put a delete notice on it?

The very first line of the metadata is "It is a fan-made trailer solely created for entertainment purposes". Quite -- hence it doesn't belong here. — evilquoll (talk) 05:14, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

The creator of this page, User:Teduhjiwakalani, has done nothing but add fanon videos from YouTube. I have duly warned him, but the two other fake "trailers" I just tagged also need to be deleted. — evilquoll (talk) 09:46, February 13, 2018 (UTC)


This image was stolen from a website (impossible to tell which) which had licensed it from Shutterstock. As stated in the delete notice, Shutterstock's ToS, when applied to an image used without payment, forbid any usage which could involve downloading or redistribution, such as on open wikis. Certainly usage without attribution is forbidden. — evilquoll (talk) 09:41, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

Yes check Done - Thanks for catching this. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:34, March 20, 2018 (UTC)

All images by User:HistoryhasitseyesonyouHermione

Every last one of them is a meme-type image (they all have in-image captions), hence are fanon. Some of them also have visible watermarks, and may be copyright violations. Delete them all. — evilquoll (talk) 04:13, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

Yes check Done --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 05:22, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

Love potions recipes

Blatant spam. Speedy delete needed. — evilquoll (talk) 17:57, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Yes check Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:42, March 7, 2018 (UTC)


A redirect is unlikely to cause confusion, and it's not like we have a data-storage-space limit, so I'd vote to keep it. The term is inaccurate, of course, but no one is saying it is accurate, the redirect precisely "corrects" anyone who might be looking with the inaccurate term by sending them back to the actual Muggle-born page overall. The person who tagged it said that "nowhere has the term been used", but the very fact that someone thought it necessary to make a redirect implies they were just wrong. There are fans out there who'd use that term. (I presume it's something like "Mundane" for "Muggle" or "Wards" for "Protectice Charms", a term that originated in fanfiction.) My point is, I wouldn't have bothered to create it if it were up to me, but now that it exists, I'd rather we kept it than not. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 14:09, March 8, 2018 (UTC)


Boy of Card Trading Club

This has NO info whatsoever... This link...

The page was blanked by a vandal edit back in February. I have restored it. — evilquoll (talk) 11:33, March 22, 2018 (UTC)
Ok, sorry...  TheSonofCharlusPotter   Talk   contribs 21:34, March 22, 2018 (UTC)