Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 7

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. -- xensyria T 15:32, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Veela Charm
While there's no doubt that the subject exists in canon, it's questionable whether the subject is suitable for a separate article. We don't, for instance, have articles on the Basilisk's stare, the dementor's soul-sucking ability (we do have an article on their kiss, but this is a canonically named effect, and thus an exemption), or any other creature's natural abilities. What makes this any different? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:26, December 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I see an article like this more noteworthy than the numerous "Unidentified this and that" pages allowed here. Only thing, the language, but language can always be improved. MinorStoop  12:07, December 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd vote keep. We already have articles on House-elf magic, the rudimentary magic of hags and trolls, and Fairy magic; this article is in about the same register. It would, however, seed significant clean-up and perhaps a rename (is the term "Veela Charm" ever used in canon?) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:26, December 5, 2013 (UTC)