Please discuss notability reconsideration here
Every wand flagged as of 19:20 UTC
Padma and Parvati Patil's wands
Unidentified Quidditch Spectators
I'm currently in the process of tagging these, including the 1996 spectators that were created a while back and have been up for deletion for a long time. The older "Quidditch spectator" articles with pictures might be worth saving as part of a "hub" article, but the 1996 ones I think could just be deleted - there's really nothing worth saving there - no picture, just a mention of some random student that was heard shouting off-screen. ProfessorTofty 03:38, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Any further thoughts? Merge to a hub article or delete? I'd move them to a hub article just to be rid of them, but it would be a really uninteresting article. 1 - "This individual sat in the Quidditch stands" and shouted "Go, Weasley!" 2 - This individual sat behind individual 1 and shouted "Come on, Cormac." (sigh) ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:25, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
- If anything, this should be (if not deleted), merged into a single article as in a collective character, seeing as info is pretty much all the same and there is lack of pictures - not a hub article, though. Something like "These individuals were Hogwarts students during the 1996-1997 school year and sat in the stands during... a.s.o." with a full transcription of all the quotes after the (admittedly) short lead paragraph. -- 22:38, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
- For the 1996 articles -- Done. All redirected to newly created 1996 Gryffindor Quidditch Keeper Trials Spectators. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:24, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
Unidentified bespectacled Slytherin girl
Bespectacled Slytherin girl has enough links that if it doesn't meet the notabiity standards, I believe there's something wrong with those standards. It allows all the relevant info--which admittedly ain't much, but ain't nuffin, neither!--to be collected in one place, which is good for the Wiki. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 04:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- It has six links, if you don't include the one on this page, those on talk pages, or the file link for the image. Sorry, but that's hardly anywhere even remotely close to a large number of links. On a sidenote, isn't it about time more of these articles were deleted? We're now over a month in from the introduction of notability. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a large number, I claimed the number was sufficient.
- If the wiki keepers are determined to throw away useful information--and I know it's useful because I wanted to know it, and this was where it was accurately and clearly set forth--then my protests certainly won't stop y'all. Nevertheless, I'm obliged to say that such a result, esp. for a wiki of only a few thousand pages, seems to me a shining case of implementing the perfect as the enemy of the good. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 16:33, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
Unidentified male Hogwarts employee (XVI)
Does anybody seriously feel that there is a lot wrong with this article that I made? It has enough information to be considered as notable (which is more than I can say for some Death Eater articles).
- Non-notable for exactly the reasons described regarding the article in the section directly above this one - it simply does not meet the guidelines because there is not enough identifiable information in the naming to distinguish the character. Notability has nothing to do with content, nor the quality of the article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:06, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- It also says above that the article could be kept if it has enough unique information on it to distinguish it. And in the section above, nobody mentions anything to do with the naming of an article. Plus I've already heard your point and you told me to do this in the first place. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 01:14, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I directed you here because everyone that has an article they created that is marked for being non-notable is welcome to come here and say their piece, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree that the article is notable. As for the article above, it's already been merged, so clearly it was decided that it was not to be kept. And you're still not getting it - notability does not have to do with content in this case. The guidelines state "unique, specific information available that can be used to distinguish them from other characters in the title of their article." This one does not have that, per the examples listed at the notability guidelines, therefore it does not qualify. The guidelines do state "In cases where a character does not meet the above criteria, but may still possess importance to the series, the article may be allowed to remain following the result of a community vote following the normal Voting policy," but I don't think it's likely you'd be able to get that one for an article of this type on such a minor character. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:25, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I was just trying to help the wiki but whatever. Just delete it 126.96.36.199 01:34, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I wondered whether, if I could find an acceptable name for the article (I was thinking "Bitten St.Mungo's patient" or "Odorous St. Mungo's patient") it could stay? --188.8.131.52 01:43, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Now that's a worthwhile suggestion. That may be worth doing, but I'd be curious to hear what some other regulars think before we do that. And to Rainbow Shifter, again, I understand that you were trying to help the wiki. A tag that the article is not notable is not any form of personal attack, it's simply a statement of a belief that the article does not meet the notability guidelines as described. If valid arguments can be provided that the article is, in fact, notable, then it can be kept. Otherwise, the information will eventually be moved to a "hub" article, so it's not like it would be deleted; it simply wouldn't have its own article anymore. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:26, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
So... wait until we get another two votes and then rename it? Just wanted to make sure, because I wanted to get it done and over with. As for Unidentified St. Mungo's patient (II), does "Winged girl" sound okay? --james (talk) 02:40, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Very nice idea Wikia Contributor, the same one I just came up with whilst off somewhere else. I don't really know what a suitable name would be though. "Biiten St. Mungo's patient"? Rainbow Shifter (talk) 03:29, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think that St. Mungo or patient should be in the name also. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 03:40, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the deletion of said article... it is notable, as per the notability guidelines. It has "unique, specific information available that can be used to distinguish <them> from other characters in the title of <their> article, in that she is the only one at the graveyard who was identified to have been female. If another one there is proven to have been female that changes the situation, though as it is right now I see no reason to get rid of it. The information provided does not apply to any other characters, and hence I believe it should be kept with the notability tag removed. --Hunniebunn (talk) 22:01, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag as not being legitimate due to the stated reasons; article meets the guidelines for notability. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:34, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks very much, Professor. Good luck with your administratorship request, with already four votes in support I have no doubt you will do well. --Hunniebunn (talk) 22:43, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
Wizard in the Leaky Cauldron
Wizard in the Leaky Cauldron should stay
this article represents, at least as far as i have ever seen in canon, one of the few or possibly only time that an wizard of significant skill(use of wandless magic) has shown any advanced interest in muggle sciences. Not only sciences, but a book by stephen hawking far beyond most casual readers who are not already well versed with the subjects.
Wizard in the Leaky Cauldron
This page should stay. It is linked to the page discussing wandless magic which is a very important page. On the page "wandless spell" is a list of all wizards and witches to have performed wandless magic. As this wizard was never identified by name it is hard for the average reader to recall his use of magic if he has no page of his own. It is also very annoying when another page makes reference to something and there is no further information on the subject referenced. You are usually just left confused and in the dark. This page may not be needed all on its own but it is a very useful support page that strengthens other pages so they can stay on their focus and just link to this reference as a footnote.
What is the purpose and objective of the Harry Potter Wikia: to be an online encyclopedia with all the content present in the franchise or be just another website with only the main content? If we decide to delete all content defined as not important, the Harry Potter Wikia would have only pages about the main characters, places, spells, etc.. Some pages are really good and we can see that the author made a good search to write the text, for example, search the scenes and images in the films, and this should be respected. Some users should stop trying to delete pages and start creating or improving pages!!! Andre G. Dias (talk) 18:57, December 28, 2013 (Brazil)
- Please do not spam the same message multiple times on every discussion. If you look at the notability guidelines, we're not discussing deletion anywhere here, merely condensing information down into more useful hub-type articles (such as Unidentified Hogwarts employees). That said, if you truly feel that the notability guidelines should be abolished, starting a forum topic would be a better venue for that discussion. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:18, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
I have done work on this article, and believe it can stand alone as a separate article. Superhuman strength is a noted magical ability in various sources (Fantastic Beasts, the LEGO games, Pottermore, etc.), and I think my edits at least make progress towards showing that. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:05, January 12, 2015 (UTC) I think it should be keeped as well.