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 Spectator 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)


 * ✅ - all pages redirected to new article 1996 Gryffindor Quidditch Keeper Trials Spectators per notability guidelines. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:23, September 5, 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)
 * I think the notability guidelines are clear - The Simpsons and other such parodies are notable based on the guidelines outlined. I'm going to go ahead and remove the delete tag from that this and other such articles. If there's any further concerns, then we need to have a proper discussion about it. ProfessorTofty 07:09, July 31, 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)


 * 'Course, but this kind of mini-game, you had already report on this wiki:

They can also be (to use your own words) "bit much", not? -- Caliméro (talk) 11:30, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Whirlwind
 * Bean Bonus Room
 * House Point Ceremony Chamber
 * etc.


 * I can kind of see the point there - those are all other mini-games that have their own articles. I'm inclined towards weak keep. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:35, September 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the difference here is in what is being covered. Whirlwind covers a spell effect of some kind, whereas Bean Bonus Room and House Point Ceremony Chamber cover locations in Hogwarts Castle. This article covers an event. There are plenty of events with official names, whether through chapter titles, video game level names, etc. Having articles for all of them, particularly when they get as minor as this, just seems like a rather large stretch. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 16:42, September 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel I must agree with Star; Whirlwind is a spell effect, Bean Bonus Room and House Point Ceremony Chamber cover places at Hogwarts which may or may not be canon (not every room at Hogwarts was explained in canon); this, however, is a non-canon article about a dog chasing a kid down a hallway. The book would have said, "One day, Fluffy chased Harry down a corridor" or something. So if this were a vote I'd say delete. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:38, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Giacometti
I don't know; this is sort of a gray idea. It's true that it's not actually mentioned in the film dialogue, but by the same standards, the argument that was used a while back against the article Dinosaur is really similar. The objector made a good point that the only actual mention is that Harry said that the only thing that has bigger bones than Madame Maxime is a dinosaur, and the article really doesn't add much value other than to reference that. In this case, the distinction is that the character didn't actually mention the phrase "Giacometti" out loud, but in terms of actual content, it still seems like both articles have the same amount of value. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:09, July 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think bear is a better article for comparison here. Bears are never mentioned in any character's dialogue, but the text of the books tells us Harry mistakes Hagrid for a bear at a distance. This is Harry's personal thoughts and opinions, it's an in-universe comparison. Giacometti, on the other hand, is the opinion of the (out of universe) scriptwriter on what that scene should look like. Rowling (the real Rowling, not the in-universe one) has described one of the stories in The Tales of Beedle the Bard as possibly inspired by The Pardoner's Tale. Would we make an article on that? I should think not, and I think the opinion of the scriptwriter on what a scene should resemble is in the same league. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:44, July 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we wouldn't make an article on that, but we have made articles such as Pride and Prejudice based on nothing more than that the title once appeared on a bookshelf on Rowling's official site and nowhere else. Which I've quibbled about before and backed down on, but I still feel like it's another example of an article that provides little content of value based on something that appeared in passing and never appeared in an actual Harry Potter book; whose actual relation to the series is dubious, even if Rowling was inspired in general by the works of Jane Austen. But maybe I'm protesting too much. I'm probably slightly cranky right now - I barely got any sleep last night, yet for some reason I'm mostly awake and alert right now, though I get the feeling I'll crash later... ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:35, July 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I guess we've gotten a little off-track here. In case I wasn't clear, my opinion regarding this particular article is delete. I believe that's a consensus, since the original creator of the article has also gone on record on its talk page to say that the creation of the article was a mistake. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:12, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter universe
1337star, why did you tag this one for deletion? I'm sure you have a good reason, but it seems a bit odd when we've had the article since 2006. Do you think what's in there is already or could be better covered elsewhere? ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:20, July 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. I had forgotten to bring this up. It seems like a rather useless article to me. I'd think if it was created today, without its history, it would be speedy deleted. It's merely an incomplete list of wizarding locations, and it's not even in-universe. Wizarding world is more or less the same article, but in-universe and much more detailed and complete. If a list of locations is wanted, there's Category:Locations. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:44, July 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, if it's just a much-less-detailed version of another article, then there's not point in keeping it around. I'm not in favour of content that is nothing but a weak duplicate and based on that, I'd also say delete, or simply make it into a redirect to Wizarding world. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:29, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

The Casual Vacancy
While I admit I'm somewhat reluctant to flag an article created by an admin for deletion, I do have to say an article on The Casual Vacancy has no place here. We are the Harry Potter Wiki, not the J.K. Rowling Wiki, and this book, unless I'm unaware of some new information released about it, is not a part of the Harry Potter series. To use some large wikis as examples, Wookieepedia doesn't have articles on THX 1138 or American Graffiti, Memory Alpha doesn't have articles on Pretty Maids All in a Row or Planet Earth, and so on. While I realize we aren't other wikis, I see no reason to have an article on something that's only relation to the series is being written by the same author. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 04:39, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering for a while if maybe we should have an article about it and was considering floating the idea on the forum. (And it seems we think alike, because I had been considering the exact same examples regarding other wikis that don't have that sort of page.) But if we want to refer to other wikis, then consider the Redwall Wiki, which does have pages on Castaways of the Flying Dutchman, Ribbiting Tales and other non-Redwall works. Just something think about. P.S.: If the article was kept, I think we should nevertheless delink everything else within it not related to Potter, i.E. Little, Brown and Company, Joel Hollan, etc. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:47, August 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * This was created strictly so the Casual Vacancy slider item on the main page didn't lead to a dead end (now that the book's title and plot details have been known for several months, though, I'm surprised that an article for it had not already been created by someone else).


 * JKR's oeuvre to date includes the Potter novels, their companion guides, and The Casual Vacancy, so it's not like we currently run the risk of opening the floodgates to a slew of articles on non-Potter JKR books. Even if JKR goes on to write more non-Potter books (as I hope she does), the The Casual Vacancy will always hold a special status, because it's the first non-Potter book that she wrote. As the book's release date nears, I'm sure she'll give interviews in which she discusses what it was like writing this book after leaving behind Harry Potter, which can of course be incorporated into the article to increase the Potter-relevancy. ★ S t a r s t u f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 05:01, August 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about this. I think the very same reason why we deleted the articles on J.K. Rowling's family members would apply here as well; this is the Harry Potter Wiki, not J.K. Rowling Wiki. That being said, I, at the same time, feel that we should keep it, given it's special link to the Potter series (as Starstuff pointed out).
 * I'd really like if Rowling wrote Casual Vacancy as it was happening in the same universe as the Harry Potter series (i.e. if she included a passage of a character overhearing something strange on the radio ("What in blazes is a Flitterbloom?!") or a brief cameo appearance of a wizard in the strange assortment of clothes they usually wear amongst Muggles.) Thatd settle this. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post!' 13:17, August 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * No consensus or weak keep after a nearly a month; I think we need to come to a decision on this fast, as the delete tag looks dumb on an article we are featuring on the homepage. Either we kill the tag, or decide to delete the article. Currently, the general consensus seems weakly for leave it around. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:59, September 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * As I created the article, it would be incorrect for me to close this discussion, but if another admin would do so, that would be great. <font color="Green">★ <font face="Times" color="green">S <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">a <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">r <font face="Times" color="green">s <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">t <font face="Times" color="green">u <font face="Times" color="dimgrey">f <font face="Times" color="green">f <font face="Times" color="darkgreen">(Owl me!) 08:56, September 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing as no consensus/weak keep myself unless there are further comments or something else done within 24 hours. Only one solid vote for deletion; all other responses have indicated "keep." ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:36, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Theo Walcott
This actor is, I feel, not worthy of an article. While we do have articles on actors who scenes ended up being cut (Rik Mayall, Luke Newberry, etc.), from the source, it sounds like he never even filmed his scenes. If it was a major actor, I could see justifying the page, but surely this can merely be mentioned on the pages of his family members that were in the film (if we have pages on them, that is)? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 05:09, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support deletion - I'm for not having stuff that's only tangentially related to the wiki's mission. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:08, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Wizarding Families with the Rare Colouring of Blond(e) Hair
I am against the deletion of the page Wizarding Families with the Rare Colouring of Blond(e) Hair because I think that with a bit of help it could be helpful. I created the page to show that the malfoys were a good example of a pure-blood wizarding family that had blonde hair. Instead of putting a delete notice, why can't people just help improve the article. I looked at the notice and it informed me to either write here or improve the article, which I did. It reposted the notice again, and while I would normally understand, can't people just help improve it. I hope to create a main article shortly that over-views how certain colours of hair are common in wizarding families, where this article would be a side-along help. If this article is deleted, I will end up putting it on the main one, which may cause some confusion. All help will be appreciated. Thank You.

ZRSFizzyBongs (talk) 17:47, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-encyclopedic and purely original research type article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:56, September 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Ditto. The point of the article doesn't get across, when you consider that Muggle-borns, Squibs, Half-Bloods and even Muggles can be blond. -- <font style="color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 21:01, September 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with the others. There isn't really any point of it. Plus, some of it is fanon, it can't be said for sure that the rest of the Malfoys had blond hair. <font color="00008B" size="2px">SorenaJ  17:31, September 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as original nominator. Notable family traits such as hair colour can be covered in the various family articles. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:38, September 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * And that makes a consensus - four. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:40, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Nexus Door
Is this an official name? Neither a Google search, checking some walkthroughs, nor watching a video of the door being constructed and entered showed any indication of this name being used in-game. If this name isn't official, I personally don't think this is article-worthy on its own merits as a conjecturally named article. It's just a framing device for accessing the "Harry's Destiny" bonus level. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 16:13, September 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Many titles are unofficial like blood quills, thats why theres that message;


 * "Are you a wizard or not?"


 * The title of this article is conjectural. Although it is based on canonical information, the actual name is conjecture and may be supplanted at any time by additional information released from canonical sources. If this occurs, please move this page to the appropriate title.


 * Besides we know what I'm talking about and I've given a description, thats what matters.


 * manundercover


 * Yes, but I'm not saying it should be deleted because the title is unoffical. I'm saying it should be deleted because (in my opinion, of course) it isn't worth an article on its own merits. There are plenty of things that are only article worthy because they have an official name. For example, "Frank Bryce's matches" would be a ridiculous article, whereas Blishen's Safety Matches is not. When something lacks an official name, it needs to actually be unique and important to be worth coverage. To use your example, blood quills are an important plot point for Order of the Phoenix, as well as a unique magical artefact belonging to Umbridge. This is just a door to access a bonus level. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:45, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Occlumens, Ligilimens, Mediwitch
Speedy delete on all three of these - Occlumens, "Ligilimens," and "Mediwitch." These are nothing more than badly disguised copies of Occlumency, Legilimency and Mediwizard respectively with a few minor tweaks and I'm surprised the prior two haven't already been been deleted. I suppose "Occlumens" might be worth keeping as a redirect, but "Ligilimens" is just a misspelling and I'm not sure I see much point in keeping "Mediwitch" as a redirect, given that I'm not sure that term ever even appeared in the books. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:22, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 21:06, September 27, 2012 (UTC)