Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Harry Potter

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Harry Potter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is probably the most poorly-written mish-mash of nonsense I've ever come across in Wikipedia. It lacks cohesion, is poorly sourced, and seems to have become a platform for editors' pet theories on the topic rather than a substantive analysis. The subject itself is trivial and should be merely a brief mention on the main article relating to the book series. In short, this article is unencyclopaedic and ought to be deleted. Crazeworry (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as multiple books have been written about it including:

Harry Potter and the Millennials: Research Methods and the Politics of the Muggle Generation
The Politics of Harry Potter
Political Issues in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series
The Politics in Harry Potter Novels
The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon
Harry Potter and Politics: A Case Study of Political Factions in the Literary Realm

Andrew (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on JSTOR brought up a surprisingly large number of articles about Harry Potter and politics. Looking through the sources on the Wikipedia page, I saw multiple reliable sources. Most of the reliable sources came from media sites. However, I also saw a source from a legitimate law journal. This article needs massive clean-up and most of the stuff based on primary sources should be removed. However, there are many, many sources on politics and Harry Potter so it easily meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't say that I agree with the nominator. There's a bit of synthesis and some weak sourcing in the article, but it's not unsalvageable. This isn't as scholarly as I'd like, but it does contain many direct quotations from reliable sources. Based on the nomination, I was expecting to find a much worse article. The topic itself is notable, and the article is fixable through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2014 (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.