Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series[edit]

The article has no outside harry potter references, and is therefore a recitation of the wonderful Harry Potter books. We already have Harry Potter book and movie articles, so this article is duplicative of those, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The page gives lots info, and I don't think it should be deleted. Kcharles 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but no notable well referenced out of universe information sadly. Judgesurreal777 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established - Not Harry Potter pedia Corpx 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about the fictional books within the Potter books. MarkBul 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not present any evidence of coverage outside of Harry Potter, and thus is non-notable. Most of the fictional books are only briefly mentioned in the Harry Potter series and few play any role in the plot at all. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines for precedent. Hut 8.5 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absouloutely no notabilty at all, pure trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just so there's no confusion...according to the Manual of Style, list articles which are created explicitly because the listed items would not meet WP:NOTE on their own are acceptable. This means the individual entries here are explicitly not required to meet WP:BOOK, nor should they be deleted for not doing so. I have no particular opinion on the value of Harry Potter, but I feel retention is the only real option if we want to follow policy instead of veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, no "I don't like it" here, just needs to meet notability guidelines. Even grouped together, these are still unnotable. Judgesurreal777 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The individual entries do not have to be notable, but the topic does. The book titles mentioned in the series are no more notable than the meals eaten, shoes worn, etc. This kind of list follows the form of a proper Wikipedia entry without the proper content. As such, all should be deleted. It's not personal, it's business. MarkBul 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List_of_fictional_books, replacing the link to this HP article.Kaid100 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kaid100. Dabomb87 18:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename - Many of the books in the list are non-fiction (textbooks etc.) within the HP series. Many of the books in HP are important to the story, especially Tom Riddle's diary, which was sentient. SolidPlaid 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But are they notable? No... Judgesurreal777 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are, since two of them also exist in the real world! See Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. SolidPlaid 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Judgesurreal777 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it notable? The article has not even one reference outside the books themselves, and is unlikely to gather more than one to sustain itself and meet the notability criteria. If it isn't notable, it shouldn't be kept. Judgesurreal777 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I presume then that you will be nominating all the lists of fictional books, including List of fictional books? And the articles in the See also section of that list, such as List of fictional companies and List of fictional media? If so, let's put all those cards on the table and have that discussion. Because unless you think all those lists should go, too, then the Harry Potter list should stay as a subpage of List of fictional books. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't presume that, because I am only concerned now with Harry Potter articles, so I only have to defend this deletion. Judgesurreal777 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I must presume that, because it's the only context in which this discussion makes sense. Considering the Harry Potter list in isolation is short-sighted and fails to address the real issue. If the HP list is deleted, its contents will be—in fact, already have been, by Kaid100—merged into List of fictional books. But that page is oversized, and larger sections get split off to their own pages. But if the result of this AfD is Delete, then splitting off the very large HP list would result in a G4 speedy deletion. A ridiculous sequence of events, I hope you'll agree. So the real discussion here has to be about List of fictional books. If that article is considered sufficiently encyclopedic, then its sublists—of which List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series ought to be considered one—are also encyclopedic, and independent notability for each individual list need not be established. Its notability is implicit in its connection to the larger list. --ShelfSkewed Talk 03:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A further note: List of fictional books was prodded about eleven months ago and, obviously, the result was Keep. Read some of the comments there for further arguments pro and con. I see from your edit history that you are coming at this discussion from the perspective of cleaning up the Harry Potter articles, and I have no argument with that goal. But this particular list crosses the boundary into the area of general literary interest. I hope that you and others involved in this discussion will take that into consideration.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but we continue to totally ignore the central issue, which is reliable sources, which would provide external assertions of notability. No one has provided even one reference, and shown this indeed is notable enough for its own article. Judgesurreal777 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying not to lose my temper here, but you seem not to be paying any attention at all to the point I'm trying to make—or to any point of view other than your own. So let me make sure I understand your argument here: If a list of fictional books is actually on the page List of fictional books, then it is safe (for the moment, at least). But if List of fictional books is too large, and a section of the list is on its own page, then it's fair game for a separate AfD? This is following the letter of the guidelines without much regard for their spirit. Let me repeat myself: If List of fictional books is encyclopedic—and it has already passed muster in that regard—then so is List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series, and it should be kept. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening, but the argument you are making is not in alignment with wikipedia policies; any sub articles have to be notable as well, and they do not inherit notability from the parent article. If an article grows too big, trim it. If, however, a section of the parent becomes to big AND HAS SUFFICIENT INDIVIDUAL NOTABILITY, it should be made into its own article. All Wikipedia policies apply to articles, and the one policy you reference wont save it from sourcing and notability guidelines. Judgesurreal777 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong. This isn't an article per se we're talking about: It's a list. If an item belongs to the list, you can't simply trim it and pretend it doesn't exist. Removing items compromises the completeness of the list. So it is allowable to split longer lists into separate pages. Show me, please, where in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), or in any other article, it says that separate notability must be established for each separate page of a long list. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that its a list; this is a quote taken directly from official policy on notability; "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This list as asserted no notability, and therefore should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, you quote the nutshell version and ignore the thorny details: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." The Harry Potter list is de facto part of List of fictional books. Again, as long as the latter is considered encyclopedic, then so must the former be. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY, the article as a whole must meet notability, and it shows no evidence of doing so, as there are NO references. Judgesurreal777 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then your real issue is with List of fictional books, as I pointed out many replies ago, and this entire argument is moot. So nominate it for deletion and let's have that discussion. But as long as that list is in, then the HP list should stay in. --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this list must assert its notability; that's all thats nominated here, and not any other, it needs its own. Judgesurreal777 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, as I've pointed out repeatedly, but you are absolutely determined to consider the Harry Potter list as an isolated article, although that's plainly not the case. I'm done here, since we're both past the point of simply repeating ourselves.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll amplify Bullzeye's quotation from the MOS: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." These lists of fictional books are fascinating to some of us, as witness the late lamented Invisible Library—much more interesting than lists of minor characters—and thus are notable in the true sense whether or not there are external references. So I think we should stick with the precedent and keep this one. And I've never read or seen any Harry Potter work all the way through. —JerryFriedman 20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that would also have references and notability, and no one has argued this article has either. I have not nominated it here because it violated the manual of style. Judgesurreal777 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of minor characters in Dilbert doesn't have references. It does have "notability" according to the guidelines, though, because of this comment at WP:NOTE: 'For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."' (This is a footnote to the sentence, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:…") I think the same criterion should allow lists of fictitious books; as I said above, I for one find them much more interesting than lists of minor characters. —JerryFriedman 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I concede that this article could, and in general fictional book lists can be notable, but, here's the key, there is no evidence, AKA references, that show that THIS article has any notability that would allow it to have a separate encyclopedia entry. Judgesurreal777 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the key. The context of the note at WP:NOTE is articles without "sufficient sources to demonstrate notability". Such lists are notable anyway. —JerryFriedman 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I see what you're saying. I still don't agree with it, but I'll have to come back to that later. —JerryFriedman 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered by the section I linked above: WP:NNC. If the Harry Potter list is considered as part of List of fictional books, then it's not necessary to establish the separate notability of the HP list. --ShelfSkewed Talk 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each article must have its own independent notability, and notability is not inherited; that's policy, and we have to follow it. Judgesurreal777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I like it" is not an argument, even if it is Rowling's. Judgesurreal777 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Bullzeye, and ShelfSkewed and others above. First, regarding notability, there are plenty of articles in WP that would fail a "normal" encyclopedia's notability test; there is slightly different standard by virtue of the fact that WP is created by the vox populi. (I count at least 20 different authors who have contributed, so at least that many think it's notable!) Rowling is quite obviously a notable author; her works are significant enough both in quality, length, and critical acclaim to deserve a detailed treatment within WP, including her use of fictional books to bolster the reality of the universe she has created. This is in fact one established literary usage of fictional books in a larger fictional work: to assist in the creation of a realistic, dense, textured world. Second, regarding a merge, from a technical standpoint, merging the list back into the larger List of fictional books would be self-defeating since the discussion page there shows a consensus that LoFB is too long and should be broken up. Third, regarding the complaint of "no notable well referenced out of universe information" - by definition a list is limited to the topic of that list, right? So no out-of-universe items should be required. However, if one wants to be a stickler on this point, then the HP book list should be considered as a sub-article of the larger LoFB, which covers not only American but French, English, Canadian, Japanese, Argentinian, and many other authors. Fourth, if one says this list of fictional books is non-notable one would have to apply the same criteria to all the lists of fictional books including the main LoFB article, and that's already survived at least one AfD. --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles don't meet notability, and that there is a list of fictional books, is not an argument. And, again, I think for the third time, Notability is not inherited. Just because Rowling and the books are notable doesn't mean every character and grassy hill in it are notable too, each part of the world she created, if it is going to have a whole article, needs independent notability. We cannot make this articles notability cling to Rowlings or Harry Potters, it must stand on its own if its going to be its own article. Lets focus on the article at hand; there are no out of universe references, so it fails notability. If anyone wants to assert that it does, great, a conversation about actual Wikipedia policy might take place. But if it doesn't, it doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How then do you fit the fact that Rowling has actually published two of the books on the list into your argument that they are not notable? See Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. SolidPlaid 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable and have their own articles; this article isn't. Again, I am only arguing about THIS article, NO OTHER. Judgesurreal777
Would you support the article being changed to something like The role of books in the Harry Potter series? SolidPlaid 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would be great, as long as there are some references, say, to how Rowling came up with them, a brief description of the books, and some outside sources suggesting their role within the books, that would be a good idea. However, until there is an assertion of some notability of ANY kind, this article should be brought foreword for deletion. Judgesurreal777 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not as I understand it. WP:NOTE twice encourages people who find possibly non-notable articles to look for evidence of notability, and says, "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:" [procedures for deletion]. So the article should not be nominated for deletion till there has been a search for evidence of notability, preferably with the potential nominator joining in. At least that's how I read it. I was wrong about a part of that guideline I cited before, though, so maybe I'm wrong here too. Any thoughts? —JerryFriedman 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the guidelines call for a notability check before deletion commences to make sure a notable topic isn't eliminated. But isn't it strange that dispite all off this passionate support for the article, not a single real reference has emerged? That's a very bad sign for the article. If anything is found, probably a minor mention, it would fit into a "Universe of Harry Potter" article. Judgesurreal777 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know. If Wikipedia's guidelines don't allow a fascinating and factual article like that, the guidelines need to be changed. —JerryFriedman 05:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, sorry to repeat myself, but I hope whoever wants to do the "bombing" will start by looking for references that they think will improve the article. —JerryFriedman 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's already one very good potential reference buried at the bottom of the (very long) page: George A. Kennedy's Fictitious Authors and Imaginary Novels in French, English and American Fiction from the 18th to the Start of the 21st Century (2004). Unfortunately, unless one has access to a library copy, it is neither easy nor cheap to acquire. I would also point out that the Library of Congress has a specific classification for "Imaginary books and libraries". --ShelfSkewed Talk 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet it's no problem to get that book by Interlibrary Loan. I've gotten all kinds of obscure stuff that way. (Sorry to intercalate, but my response was directly to the one above.) —JerryFriedman 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note the MOS section cited above by JerryFriedman regarding lists as exceptions to notability requirements: "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." This entire section on stand-alond lists is entirely applicable to this discussion and as such it's worth reviewing in full, which you can do here. --Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability is the presence as significant motifs in these extremely notable books. They will most of them be findable in the reviews and the publish literature.DGG (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, The Harry Potter Companion by Acascias Riphouse (if you believe that) has a list of the books in the HP series, with comments on them? It starts on p. 55, and if you want to see all of it at Google Books, you have to be sneaky: try searching the book for an author's name that's early in alphabetical order, such as "Bathilda Bagshot". The book bills itself as unofficial, and I take it to be an independent source. It provides a couple of sentences about each fictitious book. However, I'm not planning to add that material to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series because it would be rather fancrufty, in my opinion. The classified list of titles is much better. I'm not even planning to add the reference, since I dislike references that are just there to prove "notability", but I'm citing it in case anyone needs to add it in an attempt to avoid deletion.
Also, in case it comes in handy, the trick that finally worked was to search Google Books for one of the invented titles instead of for phrases such as "fictitious book". (This procedure will also find another HP source, which I haven't looked at.) —JerryFriedman 05:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, total, we have 2, maybe 3 references that aren't accessible and are by unknown authors...somehow, that's not promising... Actual good articles, or even featured articles need dozens of references, and we can't even really link to ONE. Judgesurreal777 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other book at Google Books (snippet view only, unfortunately) that lists fictitious HP titles is A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring The Harry Potter Universe by Fionna Boyle.
None of these books is inaccessible. As I mentioned above, you can get just about anything by interlibrary loan, and two of them are even available on the Web! Only one of them is by a pseudonymous author.
The question is not what's promising, though I feel sure that a search of Amazon would turn up more.
Nor is it getting the article "Good" or "Featured" status. However, as a result of this debate, I found out about a featured "list of fictitious things" article, which probably a lot of people here knew about, namely Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. This is obviously the result of a lot of hard work and is thought of as setting a standard for how such an article can demonstrate its own notability (as mentioned at its Talk page). However, the great majority of the references in this article are to the game and supporting and promotional materials, including an article in a fan magazine that appears to get much of its information from interviews with the game designers. All that is as you'd expect. I'm sure that not dozens, but less than one dozen of the references of this featured article are really independent. The standard is lower for simply retaining an article in Wikipedia.
I don't know why you mention what we can link to—that's not required. However, we can link to the relevant page (54) "Riphouse" book by using the trick I mentioned. That page has a (long) URL if a link is desired.
Finally, you appear to expect that you can nominate an article for deletion and have people fix it instantly. I have an alternative suggestion. Put a notability tag on the article and join in a discussion of what solving the problem would entail. If others agree that the article needs references, work out an agreement on what would be satisfactory and when it could reasonably be provided, including the delays of interlibrary loan and such things, not to mention our non-WP lives. You might want to participate in the search yourself. (But I've already found two books and ShelfSkewed has mentioned a third, which I think is plenty, so I'll be doing other things.) If for one reason or another, you don't see what you consider sufficient evidence of notability, then it would be time to renew this nomination for deletion, which you could support with the statement that people didn't want to look or looked but didn't find anything. This may be time-consuming, but deleting an article is a drastic step, especially one that some people are, as you note, passionate about. Meanwhile, I'll try to get clarification the apparent conflict on the heritability of notability (unless someone has done it first), and maybe some here will want to join that discussion. —JerryFriedman 04:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, it was brought here because I believe it can't be fixed, as it has insufficient notability. If it is really so notable, find some references and we'll build an article together that meets notability. As for now, this article isn't worth saving. But you think with more time references could be found? Judgesurreal777 06:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they've already been found, and I think more references probably could be, if people want to look for them. There seems to be a good-sized secondary literature on HP, and from what people have been pointing out, the fictitious titles are important to the atmosphere and sometimes to the plot. Some critic(s) may well have said that. However, as ShelfSkewed mentioned to me in Talk, finding more references would probably involve JSTOR and other things which would be time-consuming for many people. —JerryFriedman 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's extremely difficult to search for (books AND "harry potter") because, as can be imagined, the word books occurs in nearly every article. SolidPlaid 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential references can be found:
  • Adney, Kristine Karley: "From Books to Battle: Hermione's Quest for Knowledge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." In: Topic: The Washington and Jefferson College Review 54 (2004), 103-112.
  • Pierce, Jennifer Burek: "What's Harry Potter Doing in the Library? Depictions of Young Adult Information Seeking Behavior in Contemporary Fantasy Fiction." In: Moore, Penny et al. (Eds.): From Aesop to E-Book: The Story Goes On ... IASL Reports, 2004: Selected Papers from the 33rd annual conference of the International Association of School Librarianship, and the 8th International Forum on Research in School Librarianship, Dublin, Republic of Ireland, 17-20 June 2004. Erie, Pa.: IASL, [year?], 73-82.
  • Stover, Lynne Farrell: "Social Studies: Quidditch Quizzes and Beastly Books: Using Harry Potter to Teach Primary and Secondary Sources." In: School Library Media Activities Monthly 22:2 (2005), 21-24.
  • Stover, Lynne Farrell: "Library at Hogwarts: Classification, Alliteration, Imagination and Prolongation." In: School Library Media Activities Monthly 17:6 (2001), 28-29.
Source: Harry Potter Bibliography at Viola Owlfeathers Harry-Potter-Kiste: Ein Harry-Potter-Lexikon. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There are no reliable sources in the article. However, it sounds like reliable sources can probably be found. What would make the list of books any less notable than the fictitious author? -- JamesTeterenko 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To reiterate what others have said: All of the content of List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series would be in its own section on List of fictional books except for the fact that the Harry Potter list is long and the main list is many times longer. If this article containing the Harry Potter list were deleted, its contents by definition would have to be transfered into the main list. Thus, this discussion should hinge on one question: Is List of fictional books an acceptable article? If the answer is yes (as previous discussions would seem to indicate), then there's no reason to continue discussion here, as the issue is already settled (and whether the answer is yes or no, there's no real reason to keep talking about it here until that question is decided). The only question that can rightly be decided here is whether the contents of this page should be merged into the big list. (As a side note, I don't believe the articles should be merged. The main list is already way too long to be contained on one page, and there is even a proposal to split it further into smaller pages.) — $wgUser 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only legitimate question is one of reliable out of universe sources to establish notability, and so far, we still have established none. On that point alone, the article has failed and should be deleted; and if it does establish notability, there are no arguments to get ride of it. Judgesurreal777 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_books_within_the_Harry_Potter_series&oldid=1138010546"