Talk: Candidates for deletion/Archive 11

Please discuss candidates for deletion here

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

Studying girls

Studying girls has been a candidate for deletion for over a month. Any input on whether it should be deleted or not? --Texthawm ^{(Owl Me)} 23:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. There is no specification of who these girls are so its not important enough to keep.

Ginny101 00:34, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem relevant enough for its own article, not to mention the fact, that it's just a group of girls looking at some books, to me, they could be looking at anything, not necesarily even studying.

BachLynn23 Send me an Owl! The worst failure, is the failure to try. 19:27,1/25/2012

Dobby's shoes

An absolutely bizarre and pointless article. All it says is that Dobby owned a pair of shoes after being freed by the Malfoy's. If this stays, then we'll be seeing articles like "Ron's wellington boots" and "Hermione's spare Hogwarts robes" appearing soon. 82.42.249.145 17:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I think articles should be made for clothing only if it's useful and the clothing is memorable in the film. By useful, I mean it explained to some who may not know about the difference they saw in Dobby's atire in Part 1. And if they look at Dobby's clothes, it's linked in case they want to know more about it. *Luna ^{(I suspect Nargles are behind it...)} 18:02, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

No other character has an article for a non-significant piece of their clothing. Keeping this article would be like having one for Ron Weasley's robes or Hermione's coat. I agree that it is fairly pointless.--Matoro183^(Talk) 20:10, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Luna, you say it is linked in case they want to know more about it. That would be fair enough, but the article doesn't give any more information about it. It just says he owned a pair of shoes. That's it. 82.42.249.145 19:52, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

It is major step owning clothes though for Dobby as it shows he is free. I think this page should be kept.Happydementor 16:18, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

It would seem, in any case, that the decision was keep. The article doesn't have a delete tag on it anymore and hasn't in months. ProfessorTofty 01:21, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Christian Simpson as Old Fred Weasley

I don't know if this source is good enough. It's your decision. source: http://scificonventionsigners.weebly.com/christian-j-simpson.html Harry granger 18:34, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Training grounds way to Quidditch Pitch.

This entrance is NOT the Trainings Grounds Tower like you said. This is the Trainings Grounds tower:

{C

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lestrange97 (talk • contribs).Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Still looks a lot like the same building, or a slightly different design of it to me. The Training Grounds Way image looks to be from one of the games and there are lots of differences between building designs in the games and movies. Shorty1982 15:40, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oh came on, Training Grounds Tower is so so much bigger than the other, look to the photo of Aerial Viez of the Greenhouses, and you will see where is the building I say.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lestrange97 (talk • contribs).Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see they are at least extremely similar, if not the same. The community will make the final decision. Please always sign talk page entries with 4 tildes (~). -Shorty1982 16:06, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

And, Thank you by your opinion Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Charity Burbage's wand. I think it should be deleted because it is a fanon. No one knows what her wand is, it never mentions it. Why should he have a page for something he doesnt know exists when fanons are being deleted?

AmbroseLestrange502 02:24, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified female snatcher at the Battle of Hogwarts

What I can not understand, is why there are pages like Unidentified 1996 quidditch spectator students, that don't have any images, and this page, that also, this woman is the only know female Snatcher, can not be in the wiki. Lestrange97 20:22, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

But I do not understand why there may be other pages that do not even have a photo and is not already a party, is one of the few women that are Snatcher.

The article you mentioned is also a candidate for deletion. The fact that this Snatcher is a woman in no way justifies having an article about her. There were hundreads of Snatchers at the Battle of Hogwarts, many of them female. Unless you propose having articles on each and every one of them your argument is somewhat feeble. Jayden Matthews 20:30, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified Hogwarts student who fought against a Death Eater with a golden spell

I think that this page is quite interesting, as a Priori Incantatem may have occured, and this is quite rare. --

Octopus

Tom Marvolo Octopus

16:29, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

This should stay, as there is a picture and he is duelling a Death Eater. He appeared, making him notable.

This should not be deleted it is asimple fun page for anyone to look and have fun.

MissHowelly 17:46, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:59, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers page should be deleted because what if people who want to see the Defence Against the Dark Arts theachers' demises, and it does not show? Then they should look at the Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers page, where it has all the teachers'(excluding flashbacks) demises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tubeyou0417 (talk • contribs).

The demise of each of them is at least mentioned, if not gone into great detail, on their respective pages. We don't make articles that only list things like this, that is what categories are for and we already have a "Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts" category. -Shorty1982 00:54, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unnecessary. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:59, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Underwear

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:25, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

While I've certainly been on record as having stricter standards for notability, in this case, I actually favor keep for the article. As with urine, just because certain subjects may seem juvenile or silly to some doesn't necessarily mean that makes them unworthy of an article. Additionally, the article seems to be well-sourced and deals in fact, rather than speculative information. ProfessorTofty 23:17, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 23:58, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

no articles on Panties yet? :p --Comet styles 01:00, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Underwear article should be deleted because we all wear underwear it might be considered taboo to talk about underwear but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk or write about underwear. Charmedh2ogirl 16:33, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ProfessorTofty ; when it's done properly, hyperinclusionism is not a crime. If worded and sourced properly, we should keep it. LelalMekha 21:38, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of D.A.D.A. teachers

Stated to be redundant, as we have page Category:Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts. But page Category:Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts does not list the DADA teachers in time order, and it brings together the information about them. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

THE DEATHLY HALLOW ROLE PLAY GAME

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 02:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

My Wiki Page. The Deathly Hallow Role Play Game is directly linked to Harry Potter for the fact that the game is based after the Book written by J.K. Rowling. I see no reason why it should be deleated. It is a perfectly honest and straight forward page. It allows the fans of Harry Potter and the other characters to induldge themselves in the experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Deathly Hallows Admin (talk • contribs).

Nothing against the RPG, of course, but we host information about the Harry Potter books, films and games. Fanon-related articles are only for the most notable examples of fan organisations and/or individuals (such as Potter Puppet Pals, or Steve Vander Ark). -- Seth Cooper owl post! 02:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bean Bonus Room

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:43, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I think Bean Bonus Room has been expanded enough to have its deletion candidacy removed. GhostUser 00:37, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a good article now. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't stick around. ProfessorTofty 00:39, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

It is a valid article, I don't even know why it was marked for deletion in the first place (seeing as stub articles are not to be deleted simply because of their small size). Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:43, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jessica Arantes

Jessica Arantes was just created and is up as a candidate. This may not be a J. K. Rowling Wiki, but she does have everything to do with Harry Potter. Therefore, her family has something to do with it. There are some pretty unrelated articles on here, much more unrelated then J. K. Rowling's own daughter! -- A Wikia contributer 15:18, December 15, 2011 (PST)

But how exactly? And that is exactly the point - we are a Harry Potter wiki and if we're going to have an article, the it needs to be shown that there actually is a connection to Harry Potter. All the page is really says is "this is her daughter and this is her biographical information." If we were to keep the article, then where exactly does it end? Do we start having articles about her other children? About her husbands? ProfessorTofty 23:26, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ProfessorTofty. Just because she is related to J. K. Rowling doesn't mean we should have an article about her. People come to this wiki to find information about Harry Potter and related things, not Rowling's family. AFAIK she has zero connection to the Harry Potter universe other than being related to its creator. -Shorty1982 23:30, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above (which I agree with), see Forum:Articles on JKR's Family for an discussion on this subject a couple years back in the Wizengamot Archive. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 00:57, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jessica Arantes is covered on this, but would an article on her be valid if she was one of the people JKR dedicated one of the HP books? Do the wiki have articles on people the books are dedicated to? Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 03:59, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

She's one of the people that the dedication in Deathly Hallows is "split seven ways" to. Book dedications is mentioned in the forum thread that was linked to as being "not totally ridiculous," but I still think it doesn't really add much value to thewi. As was said, anything like that can be mentioned in the behind the scenes sections; it doesn't merit an article in and of itself. ProfessorTofty 05:01, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving this to the bottom because it was originally posted at the top of the page and I think it might have gotten lost in the shuffle because of that. It seems to be generally agreed based on past practises that we do not have articles about Jo's family members - in fact, I seem to recall an article being deleted in the not-to-recent past for similar reasons. ProfessorTofty 01:56, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Beech tree on the edge of the Black Lake

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:22, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with the candidacy of article "Hogwarts' big tree near the Black Lake" to be deleted because it is a specific object associated with Hogwarts (like e.g. the Whoomping Willow), which appears several times in series (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the Order of the Phoenix) and it might have found there many information about what did happened in its surroundings (1996, James Potter's school time etc.) Colin Fletcher 20:55, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.219.7.155 (talk • contribs).

As the one who originally added the tag, I agree. I was originally unclear as to the scope of the subject's importance (I recalled it appearing in Snape's memories, but did not remember its later appearances in the present day). As it has been cleaned up substantially, I see no reason to delete it now (and, indeed, it appears the tag has already been removed). -- 1337star (Owl Post) 22:09, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unidentified male bald Death Eater

Keep. This character is acted and occurs twice and has a significant part in the action. Anthony Appleyard 10:17, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, keep. If the reasoning applied onto this page was applied to every single page, then there would be none of these random pages about minor characters. AlastorMoody 00:50, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the page was only marked for deletion in the first place because teharticle was very poorly formed when it was created. As it stands now, it's no more or less bad than any of the other umpteen articles about unidentified characters. ProfessorTofty 19:10, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Weasley family mark

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:01, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for deletion. It is never stated it is an exclusively "Weasley" sign (like the initial in lieu of family crest, or something) and, without a proper source to this, it is nothing more than a capital "W". -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:45, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's nothing more than a stylized W, anyone could use it and people would have reason to think it was associated with the Weasleys unless they had some other information that would lead them to believe that. ProfessorTofty 19:10, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Any objections? Shall the article be deleted? -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:48, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

If anything, the "W" is more the mark of the twins and their business since it seems to figure prominently on their products from what I recall. However, even if this is the case, then I can't see a reason for a separate article. Maybe some mention in the Weasley Wizarding Wheezes article, but that would be it. - Cavalier One

^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 08:24, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

And that makes three. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:01, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pheasant

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:26, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep, no reason whatsoever to delete. I'd just remove the tag without discussion, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do so. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 22:47, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sri Lanka

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:17, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

If it really is on Pottermore, then I'm all for it sticking around. But anyone can say that anything is on Pottermore and that doesn't make it true unless we have some sources somewhere that say that it actually is, and I can't find any. And if the only claim to this is because Ebony is on Pottermore, then that's definitely no go - just because a certain type of Ebony tree happens to be found in Sri Lanka isn't enough to merit an article on the country if it isn't otherwise mentioned. ProfessorTofty 06:11, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

There is more information to the article. Ceylon ebony is a mentioned wood that appeared on Pottermore in the ebony wood section. It even is mentioned on the Ebony page on Harry Potter wiki. There are several pages that have information that is pointless but still have a page for it. It's not like I'm creating pages about countries that have no relation with the Harry Potter universe. Don't delete it. Last time I created this page (4 times) it was deleted 4 times by Seth Cooper without having any thorough look at it. I could always include information like in the Behind the scenes part like how it is a country that has had the Harry Potter books published in another language. I also have evidence for that, it's mentioned on Jk Rowling's official website. Please don't delete it, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.150.202 (talk • contribs).

It was deleted again, which would suggest that it was on its face found to not meet inclusion standards. Again, simply being the home of a subtype of a particular wand wood does not make it something that would be included, nor does being one of the umpteen countries where the books are published. Nor does a page simply being small or containing information you think is "pointless" mean that it doesn't get included. The key is that it has to be mentioned in canon. ProfessorTofty 17:11, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

To merit inclusion, the subject of an article must be mentioned in canon. "Ebony" is mentioned in Pottermore, "Sri Lanka" not so much. That's why it got deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:17, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fall Down of the North Tower

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Failed to present verification for a week; deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:08, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Not to even mention what an awful title this is ("Collapse of the North Tower" would sound much nicer), it has no basis in canon whatsoever. Harry never singlehandedly destroys the North Tower. Either I missed something that big in the film or it is complete fanonical nonsense. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:40, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry me, but I have to correct you. In the last video game, just when Harry arrives near a hole on the Quad Balconies, a spell that cames from the bottom of the Quad; hit the tower, making it fall to the Path to the Boathouse. Lestrange97 20:29, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

I've played through the game more than once (I quite liked the Battle of Hogwarts levels) and I've never noticed such a thing; the only thing I can remember is a spell smashing part of the roof at the Quad battlements, nothing more. Can you please provide some evidence (i.e. game pictures, or Youtube videos)? Anyway, even if that is true, the article did mess things up by saying that was Harry's doing; you can't just expect us to believe the article is right when it is fundamentally wrong. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:38, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Played that level through again today and, no, haven't seen anything as described in the article. I'm more and more inclined for deletion. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:17, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potter Noyz

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept, for the time being. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:08, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Why is the deletion tag on this article? There are so many Wrock bands, why should this be deleted? Harry granger Talk contribs 16:33, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it as being obviously illegitimate. Under the proposed new notability guidelines, it's possible a number of these wrock band articles would be deleted. But until those are in effect, I don't see anything about this particular wrock band article that makes it different from any of the others, and therefore be singled out for deletion. ProfessorTofty 17:25, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supreme Cores

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should delete this article or not. The fact that it is capitalised in the source (see it here) makes it a canon, wandlore-specific term. Either we keep it or we delete it and just mention it on the wand core page, it's fine by me either way. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:08, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think just a simple disambig page would be fine. Something to the effect of "Garrick Ollivander believed in the concept of three Supreme Cores that were superior to all other wand cores. These cores were:" and then listing the three. But I don't know. The same logic technically applies to the Deathly Hallows: there's not much to say about them together that can't be said about the three separately, but we have a detailed article there that is separate of the three. But I suppose one could argue that's not quite the same concept. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 19:18, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that "Deathly Hallows" covers a much more complex and relevant part of the series, but then again, we have articles like on families that present no information that it is not already present on the family members' pages (and are not, after all, that important to the books/films/games as a whole). I'm more inclined to keep this article, though. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:37, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree, if we have articles like "Deathly Hallows" that just summarise information that is already mentioned elsewhere, then I don't see any reason not to keep this. ProfessorTofty 22:47, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we have articles like "Unforgivable Curses" and no one objects to them, we should keep this one. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:54, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hemani Roshan Wand

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:18, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hemani Roshan Wand needs to be deleted as it hasn't been said in the books, film or games so this page is not true

Football444 20:07, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti Dark Mark Spell

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

An Anti Dark Mark Spell? I was under the impression that the characters were raising their wands as a tribute to Dumbledore. True, the Dark Mark did part, but I was under thte impression this was more for the purposes of the story than because of any sort of implied spell. There was no jet of light or anything else to indicate the casting of a spell, nor is it normally indicated that a spell would be cast by a large group of people. I suppose there could be a spell, but I don't know that we can imply something that doesn't necessarily exist. ProfessorTofty 05:01, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we do have spells that have no visible jet of light (in the books, anyway) and instances of spells being cast by multiple people to combat large targets. That said, I'm on the fence about this one. I'm weakly for deletion unless someone can provide a source from the directors/cast saying this was intended as a spell, or someone gives more compelling evidence for it being one. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 05:36, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point about the Hover Charm and the Stunning spells. Still, like you, I'm having trouble seeing this as an actual spell. Even if a spell was cast, who's to say that the spell necessarily combats the Dark Mark specifically? After all, the books indicate that the Dark Mark had not been seen since the Death Eaters went into hiding, so how likely is it that more than a few of the people there would know a spell that would be specifically used to repel the Dark Mark? ProfessorTofty 06:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Just rewatched this part on ABC Family, and I immediately move to keep. McGonagall is the first to raise her wand, and a small pinprick of light appears on the tip. Pan up to the Dark Mark, and a similar pinprick appears in the center of it, which only widens as the others raise their wands. Obviously a spell. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 07:49, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. Alright, I'll withdraw the deletion and do a bit of fixing up on the article. I've also made "Dark Mark anti-curse" into a redirect - which was just created yesterday and a I realised was what brought my attention to the page in the first place. ProfessorTofty 14:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irma Pince Photo?

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:44, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

I added a photo of Irma Pince and it's says it's a canidate for deletion, the reason being it is a duplicate image. I haven't found a photo that is the same so I'm wondering why it has been marked that. The photo is on the right.

Shadow Seer 22:37, February 21, 2012 (UTC)Shadow Seer

File:Irma Pince.jpg

Photo I added of Irma Pince

It appears to be the same as this photo here. ProfessorTofty 22:41, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All of the Unidentified 1996 Quidditch Spector Students.

I think all the following pages: Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student, Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (II), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (III), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (IV), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (V), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (VI), and Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (VII) should be deleted. They bear no information, or photos because they were background characters. They're just seem kind of cluttery and unessicary. Shadow Seer 03:28, February 25, 2012 (UTC)Shadow Seer

Yeah, we've been having something of a proliferation of articles regarding subjects that are of dubious interest at best. If this sort of thing concerns you, I recommend you visit this here. It's a discussion about a proposed policy for notability and I think it's about time for a final vote. You may want to read over what's been proposed, though I'm not sure if you qualify yet to vote on something like that under our guidelines, because you're still relatively new. As for the articles in question here, though, yeah, I completely agree. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they were 86'ed with all possible haste. ProfessorTofty 04:13, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should delete these pages at last. It is clear that they don't meet any criteria of notability, so there's no use in having them here. If I were supposed to leave any mention of them, I'd create something like List of Quidditch practice spectators with insterting each specartor's image. Colin Fletcher † Owl Post 16:09, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think everybody's views should be considered. I would like them to be left. I don't see any harm in doing so. It's this depth of information that makes me enjoy this wiki!Marktheseeker 20:07, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter Goes To Therapy - Please don't delete this page!

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:16, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

I created a page for my webseries: Life After Howarts, Epsiode 1: Harry Potter Goes To Thearpy. It's up for deletion. Here is the page.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Life_After_Hogwarts_-_Harry_Potter_Goes_To_Therapy

Please don't delete it. And what does "non notable fan work" mean, exactly?

It means precisely what it says. We only allow pages for very large fan works that are well known (MuggleNet, the Harry Potter Lexicon, etc.). This most certainly is not the place to promote your webseries; I would suggest doing that elsewhere. EDIT: Oh, wait, I almost forgot. You CAN put a link and a short description of it here if you insist on trying to promote it here, but that's it. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 19:04, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dracorex Hogwartsia

This is an interesting part of the Harry Potter fandom, with JKR being honored and having talked about it. No other book or fandom has a dinosaur named after it. Just because it is not part of the books does not mean it has nothing to do with Harry Potter. It is a honor to her and to us. There is no valid reason to delete it. Sev Lover Forever 04:03, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I actually nominated this for deletion for the purpose of discussion, so we can set a precedent for any similar cases in the future. I'm actually genuinely interested in whether the community thinks this sort of thing is worth an article or not. I'm currently leaning towards delete, but with a mention on the BTS section of the Hogwarts article, but I'd love to see other opinions. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 05:24, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think it should have it's own page because its so unique. I don't think there is anything else in the fandom like it, and I don't know another fandom who has a dinosaur. I don't think it would work in the BTS section because it doesn't have to do with Hogwarts the building/school, to me Hogwartsia is symbolic for JKR's entire world. I mean, Twilight and the Hunger Games are also big, but things like this is what makes Harry Potter stand out as something special, something that will go down in history. Sev Lover Forever 16:04, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

LEGO Harry Potter: The Original Years

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there is such a game known as LEGO Harry Potter: The Original Years. For more information on it, go to the LEGO Harry Potter Wiki - http://legoharrypotteryears1-4videogame.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Harry_Potter:_The_Original_Years And, to be clear, I am NOT the person who added the page. I am merely disagreeing with its deletion. AlastorMoody 03:33, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

This is also the only place that indicates such a thing, and wikis are not reliable sources. No reputable site I can find has said anything about such a game's existence. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 03:51, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. AlastorMoody 17:55, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MoreBrown901

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

It is Polish language. It says "type websites, where content can be created and changed easily and quickly, from a web browser, using a simple markup language or a WYSIWYG editor. Wikis, because of its specificity, are primarily used to work on joint projects, such as repositories of knowledge on a topic or projects of various social groups.
Wiki name comes from the Hawaiian phrase wiki wiki, meaning fast. The author of the concept and the concept is Ward Cunningham, who in 1994 for the Portland Pattern Repository wrote the software WikiWikiWeb.". Anthony Appleyard 15:35, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dora Dobrican

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Not canon

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy

Billy and Mandy really has nothing to do with Harry Potter. Out of 172 episodes, 4 contain references to Harry Potter, and even then the characters are parodies of Harry Potter characters rather than the literal characters. Harry Potter is a major part of pop culture, and has been referenced by countless TV shows. If we include Billy and Mandy then we also have to include American Dad, since Steve went to Hogwarts(sort of); Doctor Who, since Shakespeare used Expelliarmus to stop some witches; the Simpsons since their Angelica Button series is an obvious parody of Harry Potter, the characters read the Harry Potter series occasssionally, they once met JK Rowling, and one of their Halloween episodes was a spoof of Harry Potter; and pretty much every children's show made in the last ten years. Maybe it would make sense to have a page titled Shows that have Parodied Harry Potter, or something like that, but we shouldn't just make a page for every show that includes Harry Potter references.Icecreamdif 23:34, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Special messengers

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 17:40, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the article. Even the term is cannon. Rowling refers to them as such in this interview. And if we delete it, we could also delete Professor, Headmaster, Head of House, Librarian or Caretaker.--Rodolphus 14:58, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I saw was the lack of appearances, which I've now added. Could be a decent article, given some work. There's certainately no reason to delete, as the term is canon. Jayden Matthews 16:19, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

And that makes three: I'm for keeping the article as well. As Rodolphus pointed out, it would make no sense whatsoever to delete this article and keep all the articles he mentioned. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 17:40, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unidentified pensioner

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 21:54, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

G3 C535 21:14, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Horcrux discoverers

Horcrux Discoverers

Why is it useless, it is for those (Regulus Black and Albus Dumbledore) who discovered that Voldemort had horcruxes. Are categories like 'Draco Malfoy's romantic relationships' or 'Horcrux Destroyers' any less useless?

DART

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:35, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should not have articles originating from baseless speculation. In this case, the first letter is almost completely obscured - we can't even be sure that it says "DART." And even if we could, we still have no idea if it's a company or something completely different. It could be an acronym for some other organization, sort of like F.A.R.T., or a slogan of some sort. Speedy deletion, if you ask me. ProfessorTofty 16:57, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TROLL BOGEYS

Troll bogeys should not be deleted. Harry potter specifically mentions them during the trio's battle with the troll. Harry, Ron, and Hermione all express disgust at troll bogeys, so it clearly affects them Flozzlenoozle 22:53, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Troll bogeys are relevant. Harry specifically mentions them during the battle with the troll. Flozzlenoozle 22:54, April 28, 2012 (UTC)Flozzlenoozle

Mrmm, simply because something is mentioned doesn't necessarily mean that it's notable. I could see the point of an article if they were, say, used in potions, or act as a poison, or somethng. But as it stands, they're simply mentioned and nothing else. ProfessorTofty 05:28, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I posted a deletion tag is that it is just a minor comment made during the first film with and that it is purely nonsense. Besides there is too little detail anyway and I agree with ProfessorTofty's comment above. -Adv193 05:49, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Why delete it though? It is a legitamite part of the book and film, and is doing no harm on the site. It actually commands a few lines of text from the chapter "Halloween" in the first bookon pages 176-177:

It was Hermione who spoke first.

"Is it -- dead?"

"I don't think so," said Harry, "I think it's just been knocked out."

He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll's nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue.

"Ugh - troll boogers."

He wiped it on the troll's trousers.

Why delete it? Because it adds nothing substantive of interest to the wiki and it sets a bad precedent. Again, just because something is mentioned does not mean that it's notable. Now, I've argued before for the inclusion of certain articles that some people felt shouldn't remain, because they provided information that was actually of interest. But there's nothing in this article that can't simply be mentioned on the page for "Troll" or really warrants the existence of a separate article. ProfessorTofty 02:27, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing about them on the troll page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flozzlenoozle (talk • contribs).

That doesn't mean that you can't add something about it, though. Oh, and please sign your posts using four tildes, or the signature button. ProfessorTofty 04:13, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

I did add it on the troll page but it got deleted. The whole reason I even made this article is because as a big HP fan, I was wandering around the wiki for the first time and was amazed that I couldn't stump it. There was nothing in Harry Potter I could think of that wasn't on this page. Then I searched troll bogeys, and was surprised that there was no article for it. I promptly made an account, and created an article for it. The reason this wiki was so amazing for me was because it had everything on it, and I wanted to make sure it stayed that way by adding something that wasn't there. I know it might not be the most important information to be missing, but that's still the whole reason this site is successful. Just voicing my thoughts.Flozzlenoozle 23:15, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think I am leaning towards keeping the article. It is a fairly well-known line in the Harry Potter books/films ("Ugh -- troll bogeys."), and it isn't nearly as detached as other articles we have, but that definitely merit inclusion (i.e. Caxambu Style Borborygmus Potion, or Goblet of Fire casket). Also, it would be very awkward to have a paragraph on the Troll article saying 'Trolls secrete grey mucus from their nose which, when dried up, forms lumpy structures that one calls bogeys.' -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:10, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, all right. Honestly, I was only weakly against it, anyway, and you do have a point that it does carry more interest than some of the other subjects that you mentioned. So it's reasonable for it to stay. ProfessorTofty 04:49, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Is it the same thing that is mentionned in the Ravenclaw welcome message on Pottermore? "The Gryffindors are OK. If I had a criticism, I’d say Gryffindors tend to be show-offs. They’re also much less tolerant than we are of people who are different; in fact, they’ve been known to make jokes about Ravenclaws who have developed an interest in levitation, or the possible magical uses of troll bogies, or ovomancy, which (as you probably know) is a method of divination using eggs. Gryffindors haven’t got our intellectual curiosity, whereas we’ve got no problem if you want to spend your days and nights cracking eggs in a corner of the common room and writing down your predictions according to the way the yolks fall. In fact, you’ll probably find a few people to help you." -- Famini talk contribs 08:43, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Great pointFlozzlenoozle 02:48, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Wand flexibility

Hey everyone! Is it possible to ask for advice about whether a page is delete-worthy on here?

I recently made a page named wand flexibility, but it has been submitted for deletion.

I don't particularly mind if it is deleted, but I was just wondering whether anyone could check it out and give me their views?

Thanks,

— TGWD ϟ

I think we should look to what degree this subject is covered in the wiki's wand page. If it isn't there jet, we could merge the two pages. However if the information is already there, we should delete this page. It just isn't that big a subject to deserve a page of it's own.Coleon 20:56, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coleon for the advice :) This is all I could pick up about wand flexibility on the main wand page:

"Other important characteristics of a wand are its length and its rigidity, ranging from "unyielding" to "springy." All of these different factors have some effect on the overall use of the wand itself, but it is currently unknown what they actually indeed do."

The information on wand flexibillity you found is indeed more than what's stated on the wond page. We will need some other opinions on this matter however to decide on this matter. Anyone who'd like to share their opinion?Coleon 21:12, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

As long as this article is well written and its subject properly developed, I'm for keeping the article, as we did with wand core and wand wood. If this deserves its own Pottermore own entry, I think it does here, too. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:16, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

The issue I see is that, unlike the wood and core which are physical parts of the wand, flexibility is just a quality of it. And it also doesn't technically have its own Pottermore entry; it's lumped with wand length. Not to mention that doesn't necessarily mean much regardless; we don't have articles on, say, "Ghost Plots" or "Measurements". -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 23:43, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Really should've checked the Pottermore entry before saying anything about it; kindly disregard that argument of mine. That being said, I am not sure I vote "keep" or "merge with 'wand' article". It seems important enough for Rowling to describe it, and for having attributed a specific flexibility to each user's wand (and to virtually every character's wand we know the characteristics of - I could see a table on the article with individual wands and their described rigidity, with an interpretation based on the Pottermore info). If we keep this, though, we would have to create "wand length" as well. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 21:50, April 30, 2012 (UTC)