Harry Potter Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki
20,678
pages
in: Active talk pages

Talk: Candidates for deletion/Archive 11

Back to Category | < Category talk:Candidates for deletion
Revision as of 06:34, 4 November 2013 by Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) (→‎Albus Dumbledore (Chocolate Frog Card): new section)
Sign in to edit

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

GSnitch This discussion is listed as an active talk page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Grey feather

Do we need this page? We don't (currently) have pages for some of the older collectible items that are rather generic, like the postcard from London or the hair pin, at least not to my knowledge. It doesn't have a (in-universe) use, so I see no reason it should have an article. Might be worth a redirect to Errol, though, since I'm fairly certain that's whose feather this is. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:12, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

If I can give my opinion, it seems evident that the grey feather is an owl's feather. We can only rename the page in "Owl feather", no ? And, after, we can merge this page with the Eagle owl feather's page. Like that, we can put all owl feathers on the same page. It can be more pratical for everyone ^^ --Lady Junky (talk) 18:34, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
I like the merge option, and Feather used to practice the Levitation Charm could also be included if it's established it really is from a Snowy Owl. --xensyriaT 15:32, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Kept as redirect -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:08, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Keep: This article contains much matter about the fictional world. And real-world information about the filming is surely relevant. (Unless the matter in this article is duplicated elsewhere.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:10, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I, personally, have no idea what you're talking about; Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) was never flagged for deletion. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie) was, mainly because it already exists (see first link) but also because there were various plot, spelling and grammar issues. That film was never flagged for deletion, and the duplicate article seems to have been merged or redirected. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:26, December 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.

Signature spell

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
No consensus/weak keep -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:04, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've improved the wording (which I agree was awful) to give it the best chance I can, and I think it's actually a valid aspect of duelling (which if anything is an under-documented aspect of the HP universe, compared to its fictional importance). While I would agree the basics should be included in the duel article, an actual merge would mean adding instances of its use to the page, which would clutter it unnecessarily, and removing it completely would remove facts about the HP world from the Wiki – I'd say it would be much better to keep them separate and allow readers to see the known examples in a straightforward article. As for its scope, it would be interesting to go through the books again looking for any time when a specific spell is thought to give away who the caster was (the Dark Mark is a related example that springs to mind, though perhaps not a signature spell as such), or when a spell is used predictably, and simply by compiling a table of which spells characters are said to use in combat it may be possible to see trends (e.g. x always casts spell y, which I suppose was Lupin's point to Harry – there are bound to be more examples). We could also put a lighthearted reference to the Full Body-Bind Curse in Pottermore in "Behind the scenes". ;) --xensyriaT 09:41, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with xensyria; it is in my opinion worth keeping despite the lack of direct identification of it as such in canon. And even if it is just Expelliarmus, Sectumsempa and Avada Kedavra, we have an article on a video-game only, seen-once spell that only documents what happens when a couple of fourteen-year olds cast it. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 18:18, January 2, 2013 (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.

File:1318897322491.jpg

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Deleted -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:12, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
You're a bit late; the deletion has already been done, along with the other image from the same source uploaded by the same user. — RobertATfm (talk) 15:33, December 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.

Draco Malfoy's apple

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Deleted, though joking aside, there was good info that has been added to the apple article ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:20, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I realize we have pretty lax notability standards, but yeah, I'm really struggling to see to the value in this. What's next? Ronald Weasley's bacon sandwich? Harry Potter's treacle tart he ate at the feast? I was tempted to just delete this straight off, but I suppose I'll just let it to go to the normal vote. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:11, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

As I just posted in the talk page for the article, I would have deleted it right off without waiting for anyone to do anything for it. However, as a regular contributor the best I could do was add a deletion tag and make it look pretty until it got deleted. So as you can see I'm definitely all for deleting this article; that's two votes for deletion, we need one more. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:16, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
no wai guis we hav to keep it bcuz drapple is mai otp n its tots notabl and stuff Delete. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:03, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
Er... could I please have a translation of your first sentence, thanks? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:08, January 2, 2013 (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.

The significance of the Dark arts in the education of Dumstrung students.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Speedily deleted ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:20, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: The title makes it look like an essay and then all it has is that Durmstrang teaches charms, potions and care of magical creatures; and we can't even verify that. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 18:20, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, all known information is already included into Dark Arts (class)--Rodolphus (talk) 18:35, January 2, 2013 (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.

Images by Alex789

This user has been adding to various character pages (invariably, that I've seen, either at the end of "Behind the scenes" or at the beginning of "Appearances"), images which are composites of various points in that character's career, despite such images being not the kind of image we want on this wiki (according to Rainbow Shifter, anyway), and in the latest case, adding such an image a third time despite it having already been deleted twice (it would seem that some people just can't take a hint). The fact that the latest addition was not only reverted but met with a one-month block is an indication that Rainbow Shifter's interpretation of the image policy is indeed correct.

In any case, many of these images are of inadequate quality (poor contrast, weird colour casts, excessive cropping, etc.) even if we want images of this type in articles — and some of them have falsely been labelled as Gnu GPL images, despite clearly being composed of screen grabs from the movies and thus subject to Warner Bros.' copyright.

I've thus gone through all images uploaded by this user, and tagged all the composite ones for deletion (and removed them from articles, if used); I think someone (or several people) should go through the rest of his images, with a view to possible quality or copyright issues. Even where absent such issues, I suspect that there are several of these images which were uploaded simply for the sake of uploading them, and which thus if not used and not likely to be used, could also be deleted. — RobertATfm (talk) 05:18, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and any such images definitely should be deleted. I don't have much time right now, but I'll have an initial look and start purging some. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:24, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted ~25 of them that RobAT has tagged. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 05:32, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that what we have here is not cluelessness but deliberate and systematic vandalism. Take a look, for example, at the May 27, 2012 at 03:00 (I think that's UTC+1) revision of "Harry Potter"; scroll down so that the "Appearances" section is in the middle of your screen, and you will clearly see where two of these images were inserted into the article, close together, and both inserted by Alex789. Since the second one is literally only a few lines below the first, don't tell me that he didn't know perfectly well what he was doing. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:05, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Dark wizard individual infobox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lordvoldemort.jpg

  • Delete. This template was created by an anonymous user in order to replace the present infobox image of Tom Riddle with one from Wikipedia. This edit was of course reverted (since it was a unilateral action without the proper discussion), hence this template is unused and not likely to be used; two other reasons for deleting it are that it is misnamed (it's not an infobox template, it's just a template meant to be used inside an infobox) and that I doubt the intended image display works anyway. — RobertATfm (talk) 05:29, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Fred Weasley/George Weasley

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
April Fools'! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:47, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Is this an April Fool's joke? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:49, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

No, I do mean it. I mean, what's the purpose of having two nearly identical articles, when we could merge them into Fred and George Weasley, to have a bigger and more neat-looking article? It would mean less effort on the editors' part and would, on the whole, make research easier. I think it only logical, especially when one considers that even James and Oliver Phelps share an article. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:53, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
I'm still in shock... And besides, there's a lot of differences too. Their dates to the Yule Ball, Fred's ongoing relationship with Angelina, George's ear getting cut off, Fred's death, George marrying Angelina and running the joke shop alone... their personalities are so different... That's like if I said "Let's make a hub article for all three of Harry and Ginny's children, and delete the old pages". But I suppose we should do whatever's best for the community. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:55, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
If the two pages are really that similar, then I'm weakly in favour of the idea because I hate having articles that are essentially just duplicates of each other. Still, it would be a lot of work, and there are advantages to keeping them separate. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:02, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
When all is said and done, Fred and George are just supporting characters really (and, as far as supporting characters go, not as important as that); it's not as if we're trying to merge Harry, Ron and Hermione. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:05, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
I've gotten over my surprise a bit and I can now see the reasonability of merging them. Does the person who nominated the article count for a vote? I seem to remember it not counting, but my memory has been lax in the past. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:06, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
I can understand Seth's point, but I think there's just enough difference that I'm slightly more in favor of keeping them separate. On a somewhat related topic though, I would be in favor of a merge for Flora Carrow and Hestia Carrow, since there really is no difference other than being played by different actresses. - Nick O'Demus 06:39, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
KEEP THEM SEPERATE!! They are two seperate characters. If this is how you feel about secondary characters, then why don't we just go ahead and lump all rest of the Weasley family together. A combined page would be a waste of time and the character info box would be crowaded and twice as long. As for James and Oliver having the same page, they haven't done enought seperate projects by themselves yet. They're still together.  And whoes to say that someone won't come along and create seperate pages for Fred and George again? It would just lead us to right back here. Just redo the articles so they're different from one another if you feel strongly about this. Professor Ambrius (talk) 06:49, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
As far as the articles being recreated, if this moves forward then the original singular names would redirect to the merged article, and the redirects would be locked from editing to prevent recreation. - Nick O'Demus 07:13, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. That's not a concern. As for other secondary characters, yeah, those have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. This here is just about Gred and Forge... sorry, Fred and George. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:47, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Nick O'Demus. RavenclawcrestThe Evening Prophet Ravenclawcrest (Owl Post) 15:57, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject, I think we should start making plans to merge other such articles. I mean, the number of articles on virtually unknown House of Black members is just too big; couldn't we just merge them all into the House of Black article? (of course, we'd end up merging articles like Sirius Black too, as it would be weird to have a separate article for only a single member of that family, but I could go with that -- a separate section at the end of the "House of Black" article just for the information specific to him, and it would be ok, we'd lose no information).
And what's the point of having all those pages on spells (with many being unnamed in the series, and with conjectural titles such as Albus Dumbledore's forceful spell and the like), when we could merge them all into List of spells and then, a) we'd only have to tend to an article, making it easier to check for mistakes and to revert vandalism and b) it'd make reasearch by readers much easier, by having it all in one place. -- I think we should consider this, not only with spells but also with List of books and List of potions. (when you browse through the articles carefully, you see articles on books on which we know only the title; or endless unknown potions -- frankly what's the point on having those articles separately when they have little to no content?)
Really, the number of articles on this wiki is just too big, when you consider that most of them say really nothing new at all. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:07, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be a general consensus, so these two will probably be merged soon unless there's any further objections. I expect within the next couple of hours or so... ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:10, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
I'd add to that list the Unidentified Death Eaters, Unidentified students and other extras in the film which have no relevance at all, as we have done with the Unidentified Hogwarts employees. -- RavenclawcrestThe Evening Prophet Ravenclawcrest (Owl Post) 22:24, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
It's settled, then. Or of course, it would be, if this wasn't an April Fools' joke. Both pages will be kept and, frankly, we could not think of a better way to celebrate Fred and George's birthday. Have a nice one! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:47, April 1, 2013 (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.

Old Heathrow

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Deleted, per author request ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:43, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
  • Please delete this page. I accidentally created it in the wrong wiki. It should have gone in the fanon wiki. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:34, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Yes check Done ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:43, April 2, 2013 (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.

Paracelus redirect

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Already speedily deleted by Nick O'Demus ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:58, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about policy on this topic, but I don't think misspelled page names should be used for redirects. MinorStoop 10:58, April 18, 2013 (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.

William Laughton

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Speedy deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:05, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Between the bad formatting and the worse language of the page, there is nothing that justifies its keeping. MinorStoop 21:59, April 21, 2013 (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.

Orient Express

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Deleted Nick O'Demus 03:10, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

This seems similar to the deletions of pages related to the entry on Gryffindor's sword, such as the Sword of Nuadu. Like that section of that entry, the reference to the Orient Express is not in-universe, but comparative on Rowling's part, and thus the page should be deleted in the spirit of stare decisis. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 21:16, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:00, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, same standard should be applied. I agree with deletion. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:26, April 29, 2013 (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.

Expellimellius

In my discussion with Hunnie Bunn regarding this on the talk page for Expellimellius, it was agreed this wasn't a real spell. However, the discussion was just between us two, so I wanted to post this here as a formal deletion discussion. Shall we go ahead and terminate this one? My vote is, of course, yes. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:27, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Naturally I agree. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:01, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

User:Yowuza

I'd like my userpage deleted, thanks. --Yowuza (talk) 16:09, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Max family, Tripe family, Meliflua family, Cornfoot family

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Deleted --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:04, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

You do not create an article for one person? But what about the article about Kingsley Shacklebolt?! Article "Shacklebolt family" is also about one man! These four articles are just right to make and will be fine! --Мидейла (talk) 15:06, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Because Shacklebolt is s notable family, as is Slughorn, and is mentioned in the book Sacred Twenty-Eight. That's the reason for creating a one-person family-article. Max, Tripe, Meliflua and Cornfoot is not mentioned in the book. And you don't see other family articles with only one person. It's only because they are Sacred. These new articles are not worth. --DCLM (talk) 09:59, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Articles about families are only to be created if we know about more than just one family member and/or if we can present any unique information pertaining to the family as a whole, that wouldn't fit on a page about one of the family members (such as the example you cited, Shacklebolt family. The pages are to be deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:04, June 11, 2013 (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.

Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Issue fixed; article (obviously) kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:39, June 17, 2013 (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.

Files: Aunty_titi.jpg and MIKA_-_Popular_Song_ft._Ariana_Grande (video)

  • Delete both. Neither seem to have any relevance at all to the Potterverse, and the description of the video was spamming the download of the MP3 until I trimmed that part. (Though I think the spam was just cluelessness rather than deliberately exploiting us.) Methinks this is another user who has mistaken Wikia for Flickr. — RobertATfm (talk) 11:21, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Files: Flipendo_Challenge(2).png and NymphadoraRemusDeaths.png

  • Delete both. There are reasons why both .png and .jpg formats exist, and one of them is shown by the file sizes of these images; they are both much larger than they ought to be. Perhaps if somebody recoded them as .jpg and uploaded the new versions. — RobertATfm (talk) 11:32, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Belarus

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Deleted Nick O'Demus 07:30, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

This article should be deleted as there is no mention of Belarus anywhere in the book it is said to have an appearance. It has only been created because its capital Minsk is mentioned, which I say, and I think you would agree, is not enough. --DCLM (talk) 09:55, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

I agree- DN26 05:13, September 8, 2013 (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.

Natale Korzack

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Fanon article deleted Nick O'Demus 07:30, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

I am extremely upset, I created a non-canical character page and marked it as such and someone was still able to delete it. If my non-canon page was removed, all non-canon pages should be deleted.MrsKodaMartiz (talk) 04:19, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

Non-canon pages are things that J.K. Rowling chose to put in to original drafts - Mafalda, Hermione's sister - then cut; your character was a fake, made up chracter that you made. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:23, September 12, 2013 (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.

Meat lasagne

Like lasagne, this page will never be anything more than a stub, and contains nothing that can't be added to the "lasagne" page. I fail to see its usefulness. MinorStoop 12:33, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore (Chocolate Frog Card)

  • Keep. This card, unlike others, played a significant part in events. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement