Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 11

Please discuss candidates for deletion here

Archived discussions
Lists of archived discussions and their results. Sorted by year in which the discussion started.
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Minister for Magic individual infobox
 * Archive 5
 * Johnpaul Castrianni
 * Tsunami
 * Unidentified lethal curse
 * Magical familiar
 * Robert Ripley
 * Archive 6
 * Archive 7
 * Archive 8
 * Archive 9
 * Archive 10

Articles on horse and cat variants
I know that most articles of these have existed for months, but I think that articles on the horse Patronuses on Pottermore should all be redirected to horse.

We don't have articles on individual genders, just one for each species. I remember that we also merged bull and cow, which is also the same animal, but male and female.

We also could merge the pony and drafthorse articles I created myself

The same applies for the different colours. Having a different coat colour doesn't make them a different species.

The only exceptions I think are various breeds, for example the winged horse breeds.--Rodolphus (talk) 08:31, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

Bumping.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:27, April 27, 2017 (UTC)


 * I do agree that Piebald Mare and the like need to be merged into Horse as well as the articles like Tabby Cat into cat, and the original pages redirected to the species page. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:27, April 27, 2017 (UTC)


 * I think many of the articles in question may warrant separate articles. There is certainly a precedent for it. After all, we have Corgi, Jack Russell terrier, Pekingese and other articles on individual dog breeds. The distinction between a unique breed and a variant in colouration or other characteristics is often fuzzy. I think Wikipedia is probably a useful baseline for determining what warrants a separate article. Wikipedia has articles on tabby cats and piebald horses because these coat types are considered distinct enough to warrant independent coverage even if "tabby cat" and "piebald horse" aren't considered breeds. Piebald Stallion and Piebald Mare could be consolidated into "Piebald horse" or simply "Piebald". We have articles on far more trivial things and I don't see an issue with these having independent articles. Although I do think the Patronus form articles could do with a bit of cleaning up. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 23:58, August 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless the descriptions include magic, redirect each to the corresponding Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:54, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

Human hair
The appearance section is so ridiculously long that it can only be based on every single time that human hair appears or is mentioned, which, given that baldness is an exceptional trait, applies to pretty much every character. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 04:40, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

That's right. We also have articles on other kinds of hair and its magical uses though. Cat hair, Veela hair, Puffskein hair which alsi etail on the tole of hair in magic. Shouldn't we delete them all then?--Rodolphus (talk) 08:17, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

We could shrink the appearance section down to only include the appearances involving hair-related magic.--Rodolphus (talk) 08:37, March 9, 2017 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Veela hair etc. are only referenced within canon in a magical context. Thus, information on them is relevant to the plot or world of the Potter series, not merely incidental trivia. Human hair is visible in every scene in the films featuring a person, and implicitly present in every scene in the books if it's not directly mentioned, so it's incidental in the same way as eyes, skin, air, and sunlight.


 * The article, as it stands, is in dire need of clean-up. The appearances section needs to be streamlined along the lines you've suggested, because the current indiscriminate laundry list, at best, is unhelpful and cluttering, and, at worst, is inviting crufty or trolling additions to the article.


 * There also needs to be a structure. A bunch of single-sentence paragraphs is messy and unhelpful. There should probably be a section on the use of human hair in potions, a section on spells and magical products used to style hair, etc. Maybe a section of listing characters by hair colour, which, yes, is trivial, but it would also be useful (from a HP fan perspective) and interesting in the same way as the list of characters who wear spectacles or characters by zodiac signs are. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 09:21, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on all off these points. Sorry for my bad English. Maybe someone could help structure it?--Rodolphus (talk) 09:35, March 9, 2017 (UTC)


 * It's okay. There's always plenty of tasks to do on a wiki if creating articles isn't one's strong point. For now trimming down the "Appearances" section is probably a good place to start. I might give fleshing out the article a go at some point, but unfortunately my backlog for this site is huge, and I don't have as much free time as I once did. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 09:40, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Fine
Do we really need an article on the concept of fining someone? I could vaguely see it being a list of times people have been fined and the amounts and such, but we could have similar lists for any number of things. And we don't have articles on imprisonment or loss of privileges or any other similar topics. Even Hogwarts detentions, a subject which gets far more coverage and is fairly different than at your average Muggle school, just rates a section at Discipline at Hogwarts. Surely in its current state, at least, the article is not really anything worthwhile. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:41, August 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea of deleting this article is fine by me (sorry;)) — evilquoll (talk) 20:37, September 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * We have articles on far more incidental subjects. Any discrete subject potentially warrants its own article. I don't see this article's subject as being too trivial/incidental to warrant independent coverage. I just think that this article needs some work to expand it into something more in line with our mission. Adding a list of all fines issued within the course of the books, films, etc. would be a good place to start. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 20:12, October 8, 2017 (UTC)


 * Or redirect to Fine (penalty). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:57, November 7, 2017 (UTC)

Harry Potter Conspiracies‎‎
This article was recently created, and I don't think it's very article-worthy in its current state (no offense to the author of course, just constructive criticism). However, with some more focus and a rename (maybe something like List of Harry Potter fan theories), I think this could be a viable article. Ideally, I'd see it as something along the lines of the article I recently made on Shipping, covering fan theories that have been (one way or the other) discussed by Rowling, perhaps even expanding into theories with widespread community support (as would be shown by citations showing they've been discussed on prominent Harry Potter fansites like MuggleNet or the Leaky Cauldron). -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:13, September 14, 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that there would be value in having an article covering prominent Harry Potter fan theories. Plenty of fan theories have emerged over the years (Snape being a vampire is a popular one that springs to mind) and some have even been addressed by J. K. Rowling in interviews or on her official site. It would be useful to lay out the reasoning behind popular fan theories and collect JKR's statements on them in one place. But, as you say, everything would have to be properly cited, and ideally there would be sources establishing that a theory has gained widespread traction in the fandom, and isn't just one random fan's idea.


 * That said, I deleted the "Harry Potter Conspiracies" article, as it didn't strike me as workable. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 20:03, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Bolzon
IMDb is an unreliable source at the best of times, and their page for this actress no longer seems to exist, nor is she mentioned on the site's cast list. I'm thinking that (somehow) "Jessica Bolzon" was some sort of confusion with Jessica Williams. Anyway, with no currently available source, this seems to be a pretty clear-cut deletion. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:48, November 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The IMDb page definitely existed yesterday. Which doesn't alter the fact that our latest vandal was wrong to blank the page, as this is the vandal way to do a delete nomination, not the correct way. — evilquoll (talk) 18:21, November 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the link is obsolete, I've tagged it for needing verification. If nothing is provided within a week, it gets deleted. - Nick O'Demus 03:41, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

File:Vlcsnap-2017-11-24-13h01m40s643.png

 * Somoeone's cartoonish CGI idea of a witch? Delete it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, November 28, 2017 (UTC)