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

Armand Malfoy
I am against the deletion of this page, and any other additional information on the Malfoy family. I know it is a spoiler, and I will put pottermore spoiler alerts. It is in Chamber of Secrets, chapter 4, moment 4 "Lucius Malfoy", The Malfoy family, New from JK Rowling. SorenaJ (talk) 17:21, July 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Chamber of Secrets hasn't been released on Pottermore yet! I know Slytherin is supposed to get a 24-hour advance, but I checked on the Pottermore Insider and all it says is that this week they're working on sound effects for one of the chapters. If Chamber of Secrets were ready, it would be plastered all over the Insider and the blogosphere. So unless you can point me to a legitimate source stating that they've released it, you're not convincing me you have access to it, and this stuff you're posting is fanon. It has the general hallmarks of fanon, anyway. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:26, July 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, so it seems I was mistaken. I just checked on Pottermore and apparently it has in fact been released. Very odd that they would just release it without making any sort of announcement. Oh, and please don't delete another poster's comments. I admit I have to eat crow on this one, but comments are not to be removed once they've been posted. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:43, July 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry I deleted your comment, it was an accident, I deleted my own comment as well. I have put pottermore spoiler alerts on the Malfoy pages. Yes, it is odd with no announcements. I will try to make any future article more supported and less fanon-like. SorenaJ (talk) 17:49, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Studying girls
Studying girls has been a candidate for deletion for over a month. Any input on whether it should be deleted or not? -- Texthawm (Owl Me) 23:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. There is no specification of who these girls are so its not important enough to keep.

Ginny101 00:34, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem relevant enough for its own article, not to mention the fact, that it's just a group of girls looking at some books, to me, they could be looking at anything, not necesarily even studying.

Dobby's shoes
An absolutely bizarre and pointless article. All it says is that Dobby owned a pair of shoes after being freed by the Malfoy's. If this stays, then we'll be seeing articles like "Ron's wellington boots" and "Hermione's spare Hogwarts robes" appearing soon. 82.42.249.145 17:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I think articles should be made for clothing only if it's useful and the clothing is memorable in the film. By useful, I mean it explained to some who may not know about the difference they saw in Dobby's atire in Part 1. And if they look at Dobby's clothes, it's linked in case they want to know more about it. *Luna (I suspect Nargles are behind it... ) 18:02, May 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * No other character has an article for a non-significant piece of their clothing. Keeping this article would be like having one for Ron Weasley's robes or Hermione's coat. I agree that it is fairly pointless.-- Matoro 183 (Talk) 20:10, May 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Luna, you say it is linked in case they want to know more about it. That would be fair enough, but the article doesn't give any more information about it. It just says he owned a pair of shoes. That's it. 82.42.249.145 19:52, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is major step owning clothes though for Dobby as it shows he is free. I think this page should be kept.Happydementor 16:18, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It would seem, in any case, that the decision was keep. The article doesn't have a delete tag on it anymore and hasn't in months. ProfessorTofty 01:21, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Christian Simpson as Old Fred Weasley
I don't know if this source is good enough. It's your decision. source: http://scificonventionsigners.weebly.com/christian-j-simpson.html Harry granger 18:34, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Training grounds way to Quidditch Pitch.
This entrance is NOT the Trainings Grounds Tower like you said. This is the Trainings Grounds tower:

{C Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Still looks a lot like the same building, or a slightly different design of it to me. The Training Grounds Way image looks to be from one of the games and there are lots of differences between building designs in the games and movies. Shorty1982 15:40, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh came on, Training Grounds Tower is so so much bigger than the other, look to the photo of Aerial Viez of the Greenhouses, and you will see where is the building I say.Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * From what I can see they are at least extremely similar, if not the same. The community will make the final decision. Please always sign talk page entries with 4 tildes (~). -Shorty1982 16:06, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * And, Thank you by your opinion Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Charity Burbage's wand. I think it should be deleted because it is a fanon. No one knows what her wand is, it never mentions it. Why should he have a page for something he doesnt know exists when fanons are being deleted?

AmbroseLestrange502 02:24, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified female snatcher at the Battle of Hogwarts
What I can not understand, is why there are pages like Unidentified 1996 quidditch spectator students, that don't have any images, and this page, that also, this woman is the only know female Snatcher, can not be in the wiki. Lestrange97 20:22, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

But I do not understand why there may be other pages that do not even have a photo and is not already a party, is one of the few women that are Snatcher.
 * The article you mentioned is also a candidate for deletion. The fact that this Snatcher is a woman in no way justifies having an article about her. There were hundreads of Snatchers at the Battle of Hogwarts, many of them female. Unless you propose having articles on each and every one of them your argument is somewhat feeble. Jayden Matthews 20:30, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified Hogwarts student who fought against a Death Eater with a golden spell
I think that this page is quite interesting, as a Priori Incantatem may have occured, and this is quite rare. --  16:29, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

This should stay, as there is a picture and he is duelling a Death Eater. He appeared, making him notable.

This should not be deleted it is asimple fun page for anyone to look and have fun.

MissHowelly 17:46, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

List of D.A.D.A. teachers

 * Stated to be redundant, as we have page Category:Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts. But page Category:Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts does not list the DADA teachers in time order, and it brings together the information about them. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Arantes
Jessica Arantes was just created and is up as a candidate. This may not be a J. K. Rowling Wiki, but she does have everything to do with Harry Potter. Therefore, her family has something to do with it. There are some pretty unrelated articles on here, much more unrelated then J. K. Rowling's own daughter! -- A Wikia contributer 15:18, December 15, 2011 (PST)
 * But how exactly? And that is exactly the point - we are a Harry Potter wiki and if we're going to have an article, the it needs to be shown that there actually is a connection to Harry Potter. All the page is really says is "this is her daughter and this is her biographical information." If we were to keep the article, then where exactly does it end? Do we start having articles about her other children? About her husbands? ProfessorTofty 23:26, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with ProfessorTofty. Just because she is related to J. K. Rowling doesn't mean we should have an article about her. People come to this wiki to find information about Harry Potter and related things, not Rowling's family. AFAIK she has zero connection to the Harry Potter universe other than being related to its creator. -Shorty1982 23:30, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above (which I agree with), see Forum:Articles on JKR's Family for an discussion on this subject a couple years back in the Wizengamot Archive. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 00:57, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jessica Arantes is covered on this, but would an article on her be valid if she was one of the people JKR dedicated one of the HP books? Do the wiki have articles on people the books are dedicated to? Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 03:59, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * She's one of the people that the dedication in Deathly Hallows is "split seven ways" to. Book dedications is mentioned in the forum thread that was linked to as being "not totally ridiculous," but I still think it doesn't really add much value to thewi. As was said, anything like that can be mentioned in the behind the scenes sections; it doesn't merit an article in and of itself. ProfessorTofty 05:01, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm moving this to the bottom because it was originally posted at the top of the page and I think it might have gotten lost in the shuffle because of that. It seems to be generally agreed based on past practises that we do not have articles about Jo's family members - in fact, I seem to recall an article being deleted in the not-to-recent past for similar reasons. ProfessorTofty 01:56, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified male bald Death Eater

 * Keep. This character is acted and occurs twice and has a significant part in the action. Anthony Appleyard 10:17, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep. If the reasoning applied onto this page was applied to every single page, then there would be none of these random pages about minor characters. AlastorMoody 00:50, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the page was only marked for deletion in the first place because teharticle was very poorly formed when it was created. As it stands now, it's no more or less bad than any of the other umpteen articles about unidentified characters. ProfessorTofty 19:10, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

All of the Unidentified 1996 Quidditch Spector Students.
I think all the following pages: Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student, Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (II), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (III), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (IV), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (V), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (VI), and Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (VII) should be deleted. They bear no information, or photos because they were background characters. They're just seem kind of cluttery and unessicary. Shadow Seer 03:28, February 25, 2012 (UTC)Shadow Seer
 * Yeah, we've been having something of a proliferation of articles regarding subjects that are of dubious interest at best. If this sort of thing concerns you, I recommend you visit this here. It's a discussion about a proposed policy for notability and I think it's about time for a final vote. You may want to read over what's been proposed, though I'm not sure if you qualify yet to vote on something like that under our guidelines, because you're still relatively new. As for the articles in question here, though, yeah, I completely agree. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they were 86'ed with all possible haste. ProfessorTofty 04:13, February 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Somebody should delete these pages at last. It is clear that they don't meet any criteria of notability, so there's no use in having them here. If I were supposed to leave any mention of them, I'd create something like List of Quidditch practice spectators with insterting each specartor's image. 16:09, April 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think everybody's views should be considered. I would like them to be left. I don't see any harm in doing so. It's this depth of information that makes me enjoy this wiki!Marktheseeker 20:07, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Dracorex Hogwartsia
This is an interesting part of the Harry Potter fandom, with JKR being honored and having talked about it. No other book or fandom has a dinosaur named after it. Just because it is not part of the books does not mean it has nothing to do with Harry Potter. It is a honor to her and to us. There is no valid reason to delete it. Sev Lover Forever 04:03, March 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually nominated this for deletion for the purpose of discussion, so we can set a precedent for any similar cases in the future. I'm actually genuinely interested in whether the community thinks this sort of thing is worth an article or not. I'm currently leaning towards delete, but with a mention on the BTS section of the Hogwarts article, but I'd love to see other opinions. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 05:24, March 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should have it's own page because its so unique. I don't think there is anything else in the fandom like it, and I don't know another fandom who has a dinosaur. I don't think it would work in the BTS section because it doesn't have to do with Hogwarts the building/school, to me Hogwartsia is symbolic for JKR's entire world. I mean, Twilight and the Hunger Games are also big, but things like this is what makes Harry Potter stand out as something special, something that will go down in history. Sev Lover Forever 16:04, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy
Billy and Mandy really has nothing to do with Harry Potter. Out of 172 episodes, 4 contain references to Harry Potter, and even then the characters are parodies of Harry Potter characters rather than the literal characters. Harry Potter is a major part of pop culture, and has been referenced by countless TV shows. If we include Billy and Mandy then we also have to include American Dad, since Steve went to Hogwarts(sort of); Doctor Who, since Shakespeare used Expelliarmus to stop some witches; the Simpsons since their Angelica Button series is an obvious parody of Harry Potter, the characters read the Harry Potter series occasssionally, they once met JK Rowling, and one of their Halloween episodes was a spoof of Harry Potter; and pretty much every children's show made in the last ten years. Maybe it would make sense to have a page titled Shows that have Parodied Harry Potter, or something like that, but we shouldn't just make a page for every show that includes Harry Potter references.Icecreamdif 23:34, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Horcrux Discoverers
Why is it useless, it is for those (Regulus Black and Albus Dumbledore) who discovered that Voldemort had horcruxes. Are categories like 'Draco Malfoy's romantic relationships' or 'Horcrux Destroyers' any less useless?

Wand flexibility
Hey everyone! Is it possible to ask for advice about whether a page is delete-worthy on here?

I recently made a page named wand flexibility, but it has been submitted for deletion.

I don't particularly mind if it is deleted, but I was just wondering whether anyone could check it out and give me their views?

Thanks,

— TGWD ϟ

I think we should look to what degree this subject is covered in the wiki's wand page. If it isn't there jet, we could merge the two pages. However if the information is already there, we should delete this page. It just isn't that big a subject to deserve a page of it's own.Coleon 20:56, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coleon for the advice :) This is all I could pick up about wand flexibility on the main wand page:

"Other important characteristics of a wand are its length and its rigidity, ranging from "unyielding" to "springy." All of these different factors have some effect on the overall use of the wand itself, but it is currently unknown what they actually indeed do."

The information on wand flexibillity you found is indeed more than what's stated on the wond page. We will need some other opinions on this matter however to decide on this matter. Anyone who'd like to share their opinion?Coleon 21:12, April 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as this article is well written and its subject properly developed, I'm for keeping the article, as we did with wand core and wand wood. If this deserves its own Pottermore own entry, I think it does here, too. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:16, April 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue I see is that, unlike the wood and core which are physical parts of the wand, flexibility is just a quality of it. And it also doesn't technically have its own Pottermore entry; it's lumped with wand length. Not to mention that doesn't necessarily mean much regardless; we don't have articles on, say, "Ghost Plots" or "Measurements". -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 23:43, April 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Really should've checked the Pottermore entry before saying anything about it; kindly disregard that argument of mine. That being said, I am not sure I vote "keep" or "merge with 'wand' article". It seems important enough for Rowling to describe it, and for having attributed a specific flexibility to each user's wand (and to virtually every character's wand we know the characteristics of - I could see a table on the article with individual wands and their described rigidity, with an interpretation based on the Pottermore info). If we keep this, though, we would have to create "wand length" as well. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:50, April 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of merging this into wand or wandlore (or both). As noted, while cores and woods are actual physical materials, length and flexibility are more characteristics or properties. - Nick O'Demus  09:47, May 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * There is another point why I agree with and . There are much more known wand woods and wand cores than there are for length and flexibility.    12:03, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified male Death Eater killed by a grey hair wizard
I'm honestly not for or against this article, but when I saw that it was a candidate for deletion, I had to act. My sole and only argument for its deletion is this: Have you seen how many other random pages pertain to random Death Eaters briefly seen in the films? If this page is deleted, they all should be deleted. For whatever reason this should be deleted, then that same reason applies to the rest. AlastorMoody 04:53, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * We could eliminate all of those articles in a flash if we could just pass the notability policy, which for some reason seems to be stuck in eternal limbo. But so long as the others are sticking around, I agree that threre's nothing in particular about this article that makes it different from those othes and thus worthy of deletion, unless by some chance it's actually a duplicate of one of the other umpteen that already listed. ProfessorTofty 04:49, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Hash Browns
If this page is "massively unnecessary", then why don't we go ahead and delete all of the other pages which are seemingly unnecessary. There are countless pages that pertain to food, I don't see why this one is any different. AlastorMoody 00:56, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

The Simpsons
There is an article that's tagged for deletion. This page covers episodes in which they parody Harry Potter in various ways. The reason it's been tagged is because it's been discussed in a talk page. I personally think this page shouldn't be deleted as it is relavent as a parody, and should have it's own page, rather than a single slot on a talk page.

- Shadow Seer 04:09, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

The Frantic Fluffy Chase
Even by this wiki's large inclusionism standards, this article is a bit much. It's not a large-scale battle or a duel between two wizards like the other similar articles, it's just Fluffy chasing Harry down a corridor. And it's not even canon to boot. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:47, May 30, 2012 (UTC)