Talk: Non-notable articles

Archives
Archive 1 (2012–2022) Archive 2 (2021) Archive 3 (2022) Archive 4 (2023) Archive 5 (2024)

Please discuss notability reconsideration here

1982–1983 school year and 1983–1984 school year

(discussion moved from Category talk:Candidates for deletion)

These two pages don't seem notable in any way to me. I don't even know where they are actually mentioned in canon. Are they through Bill's words (e.g. my first/second year)? Anyway, seeing as the point of most of the school year pages is to "list the general events" that happened in them and these two have none that's known, and nothing in them is not repeated in (copied from) 1984–1985 school year, I think they almost certainly qualify for deletion. MalchonC (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

These pages aren't even tagged with {{delete}} so not sure why they are being discussed here. Also, they appear to have canon Appearances as Mentions in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery so it seems the discussion should be on the article's talk page to sort out what exactly was said about the years and possibly find a video reference as confirmation. That would sort out what we actually know about them and answer any concerns. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

They're tagged with the Notability template and that tag says delete or merge. The only reason I haven't tagged the Delete template is because I want to discuss it first :) This issue involves two articles with the same kind of discussion needed so I thought here would be a better choice to cover them both. If we find information specific to a certain one (e.g. a mention is found to one of them) we can move the discussion there. MalchonC (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the reason for them being considered for deletion isn't specific to any one of them. Even if a mention is found, that doesn't make the school year automatically notable enough to have its own article. By that logic we should also have school years like the 1927–1928 school year (which actually appears) and the 1971–1972 school year (which appears as flashback) created as articles. If we decide the 1982–1983 and 1983–1984 school years are notable enough, then those I just talked about definitely are too. All in all, this is a very general topic that I think cannot be properly resolved on an article's talk page. MalchonC (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

But as noted on {{Notability}}: "If you disagree with either of these actions, please explain why at 'Category talk:Non-notable articles' or improve the page and remove this tag." So if it a question of notability, that is where this discussion should be instead of on Category:Candidates for deletion (which it is now - thanks Sammm鯊!). I can't see a reason why the 1927–1928 or 1971–1972 school year articles wouldn't be notable as we know several students, events, and teachers from those years - if HM mentions details about the 82-82 and 83-84 school years then those should be an article as well - what exactly is said? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem: we don't know yet. I'll leave a message to the user who created these articles. FYI, I already did on Talk:1983–1984 school year and haven't gotten a confirmation. MalchonC (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I tagged the articles with {{Verify}} because we still don't know whether and where they're mentioned in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery. And together with the notability issue, I trust that when 7 days pass, they would be available for deletion? MalchonC (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Verify is for articles that lack sources/appearances (as it directly says) which is not the case here. The question is if/how these years are mentioned in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery so it's more a matter of tagging {{fact}} on the information given. Ultimately someone will need to hunt down the HM mentions to see what was said and how, but we've never required direct/video evidence be given so it would be an odd change to now say that these articles need to meet this criteria or be deleted. As already discussed above, if mentioned in a canon source, then these school years are as notable as any other school year. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Simply having an appearance section that says "{{HM}} {{1st Mention}}" doesn't automatically inform us where exactly it is mentioned. It is as good as not having this section, what's the difference? If unsourced claims can be removed from articles, the claims that the school years are mentioned in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery are completely unsourced (there isn't even a tiny bit of information in these articles that doesn't come from 1984–1985 school year) so why can't we raise questions about the authenticity of them? MalchonC (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions about a statement's authenticity can be raised - that is exactly what {{fact}} is for, just as {{Verify}} is for articles that lack an Appearance section. However, no Appearance sections says exactly where an item was mentioned or appeared - there are no timestamps required for the movies, or "chapter & verse" for the books, or direct pages linked for Pottermore, or videos required for any of the games, etc... {{fact}} allows for statements to be tagged as needing verification, instead of presuming no such verification exists a priori. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

So this conversation is just going to die down? I still strongly oppose these articles from existing because if we allow them, we cannot prevent users from creating articles like 1981–1982 school year, 1980–1981 school year, 1979–1980 school year, which should have absolutely no place on the wiki unless a clear source of mention is provided. What about the 7-day verification routine? I think some actions need to be taken. The user who created those articles either ignored my messages or refused to respond, so I say if another 7 days pass and no one has provided clear sources (down to chapter or side quest name) AND a good reason for these articles to stay (for example why would readers check them out or how they're important enough to deserve their own pages and/or be linked from other articles), we delete them. If even this simple proposal is considered not appropriate, then perhaps we really need to think about what should be written on the policies about how to deal with non-notable articles. MalchonC (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bumping. MalchonC (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bumping. MalchonC (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the deletions. I’ll leave this discussion open for seven days, and if there is no opposition, I’ll proceed with the changes. - Peregino (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Polyjuice Potion

With regards to the talk page discussion in which a few editors have expressed the view this is unnecessary, I have decided it a good idea to formally start the same discussions here. Personally myself, along with others don't think the category is inaccurate, we just think perhaps it is unnecessary, since no other potion or spell has their own category, this category just contains numerous topics related to the subject, making it really an "Article by topic" category, and I often see that the category "Potions" gets added to this, which makes the category redundant on the main article, as well being the only actual "potion" in the category being the main article. Thoughts? RedWizard98 (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bumping this discussion. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Bumping. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be re-evaluated. I don't think this category is particularly notable, because the only actual potion in this category is the Polyjuice Potion article itself, so it would be incorrect to categorise the category under "Potions" because everything else inside this category is not a potion. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I support the deletion. I’ll leave this discussion open for seven days, and if there is no opposition, I’ll proceed with the change. - Peregino (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Ross

No "moving paintings" appeared in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore aside from Ariana, I have a feeling my past reservations about making articles for people who may not have appeared in the final release were not unfounded. She's not on IMDb. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello guys? This woman is not listed on IMDb or any other source I have read as being in the film. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Bump, case not resolved. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I support the deletion. I’ll leave this discussion open for seven days, and if there is no opposition, I’ll proceed with the change. - Peregino (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Dumbledore cottage

Can't find any exact mention of the home that the Dumbledores lived in Godric's Hollow in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I think this article was created from an inaccurate reading of the source material, considering it said it was located on the outskirts, something that was said of where Enid Smeek lived, not the Dumbledores. Also could find any mention of a Dumbledore "cottage" in the book either. Please someone corroborate with me on this. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, wasn't Bathilda Babbling one of the neighbours of the Dumbledores? That Bathilda came over to welcome them to the neighbourhood, and Kendra slammed the door in her face or something? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Chapter 11 gives some indirect mentions to a house they lived in, such as mentioning their garden and front door. Thanks for giving these pointers. But it is never exactly said to be a cottage. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but isn't cottages the only type of house found in Godric's Hollow? When Harry and Hermione arrived, that's the only sort of accommodations The Narrator describes as being around them, and then when the two visit the Potter cottage, The Narrator describes it as "a cottage" and "the house". And a cottage is a small house, so the cottages in Godric's Hollow could also be interchangeably referred to as 'houses' without that being wrong or misleading or anything. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Rowling has never stated what kind of building the Dumbledores resided in, or that Godric's Hollow just had cottages. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows just says there was a narrow road which had cottages on both sides. - Kates39 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I misremembered. Well, a house is a house, and "house" is vague enough to be accurate if we exclude the assumption about what type of house it is. I suggest we change the name of the article to "Dumbledore house". WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The house is mentioned in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore and all over Chapter 18 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. ShawONWIKI (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore screenplay will be out in ten days and should hopefully clear up if it was mentioned in it. - Kates39 (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Not done. - Peregino (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Pure-blood property ownership spell

Again largely unsure of this article's nature; source only says such a spell was purely hypothetical without a confirmed existence (HBP chapter 3). Would personally propose speculation about hypothetical spell being merged with 12 Grimmauld Place article, or perhaps something similar already in place. Such a spell has never been comfirmed to truly exist. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The source does not say such a spell was purely hypothetical, it says that the possibility of it having been placed on Sirius' will was hypotetical. If any wizard would have known if such a thing could concvivably have been placed on Grimmauld Place 12, Dumbledore would, and why on Earth would he ever have posited that it might have if the existence of such a spell was in any way outlandish or foreign to him? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think spells that are mentioned to possibly exist by characters can have pages. MalchonC (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Except this spell isn't said to "possibly exist", it was said to possibly having been put on Grimmauld Place 12. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dumbledore says "it is nevertheless possible that some spell or enchantment has been set upon the place", not "the spell or enchantment that ensures […] has probably been set upon the place", so it is still likely that he isn't entirely sure if there is a spell that does that. Anyway, this talk page is about notability, not able the nature of the spell, and I think either way the spell should be notable. MalchonC (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Dumbledore is an authority on magic with a great deal of expertise, so it is very possible that this spell exists if he brought it up. I do not think it is unnotable. Castlemore (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Merope Gaunt's wand and Morfin Gaunt's wand

Identical argument to the wand discussions above really; the only known thing about this wand is its unsuccessful usage by Merope, meaning this wand is not that notable. The notability guidelines say something other than its spell usage must be known. The only thing known about Morfin's wand is the spells cast by it, and the fact that Voldemort stole it, but we don't know if he ever actually earned its loyalty. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Bumping. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Walden Macnair's wand

Another wand article which does not qualify under the notability guidelines.

Many other wand articles also exist on this discussions page, which have yet to be resolved; they should be resolved, as there is nothing preventing such action. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Non-notable wands

Just as a general reminder, there are a lot of non-notable wands still in this category, that can all be deleted. Some of them include the wands owned by Olyme Maxime, the Gaunts, Fudge, Dorcas Twelvetrees, and others. I think we should start unlinking and deleting them. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There are still far too many non-notable wands profilerating the wiki. Nothing is known about them aside from their spells cast and ownership, which is not enough for the notability guidelines. Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As a quick note, please make sure that any details from a wand article deemed non-notable should be migrated into the lists of Known Wands. While the wand may not be notable enough based on Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines, its existence and refs for known appearances should not simply be erased but captured on the Wand hub article instead.

Also, the discussion for these wands needs to separated out as while Olympe Maxime's wand may not meet the notability requirements, another wand such as Bartemius Crouch Senior's wand might given its design details from the film, its exclusion from the Noble Collection, etc. There is not a one-size fits all solution here. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Olympe Maxime's wand, Merope Gaunt's wand, Morfin Gaunt's wand, Antioch Peverell's wand, Altheda's wand, Cornelius Fudge's wand, Dorcus Twelvetrees's wand, Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's wand, Raczidian's wand, Dean Thomas's second wand, Bartemius Crouch Senior's wand, Gunnar Grimmson's wand, Isobel Ross's wand, Narcissa Malfoy's second wand

Here at least some of the wands lacking any notable features. And yes, I have checked thoroughly. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted three of the above, but couldn't find a page for Marvolo Gaunt's wand. Are you sure you linked the page you intended to? - Kates39 (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that the intended page was Morfin Gaunt's wand. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, yes it was supposed to be Morfin Gaunt's wand! I have also added several more non-notable wands to the heading. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Mathilda Grimblehawk's partner's wand

Nothing on this page currently presents the wand as being notable. While I believe you could possibly customise this wand in the game, the player's wand in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite which was fully customisable lacks an article. Should we keep it (and highlight its potential features) or deem it non-notable? RedWizard98 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Unidentified female Acolyte at the Candidates' Dinner and Red-haired young witch's friends

Both these articles are far too long for otherwise unnamed characters without any plot significance or individual notability. The aforementioned is for an unnamed witch without a known actress attributed to her, which is far too long for someone unidentified and without dialogue, and the latter is a generic page about generic people who attended Grindelwlad's Paris rally. Neither of these I would say are even slightly notable. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello people? RedWizard98 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Temeritus Shanks's owl

I will disagree here with the notability tag, simply because his portrait is shown to have an owl, similar to Giffard Abbott's dog. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Unknown relieving spell

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore - The Complete Screenplay says Santos was somehow able to "lift" the Cruciatus Curse. It does not really explain much more detail than that. This article does not really fit that description. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump. I still think this spell is too vague. Either it needs clarifying with detailed BTS or possibly removing. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Gellert Grindelwald's whip-like spell

Is it just me but I found most of the spells used in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore's duels to be extremely generic, brief and difficult to identify and differentiate, this being one of them. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done Conversation lacks consensus. - Peregino (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Raczidian's wand

Not a very notable topics in its own right, as the only known information about this wand is its spell cast with it, and it has no identified characteristics either. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Unknown relieving spell

Again this is just another really low quality article made by editor Kyle.ak which lacks any form of layout or citations, that fittingly has a notability tag attached to it. In question, the screenplay instead somehow she was able to lift the Cruciatus Curse (something which is canonically problematic in its own right), making this article unnecessary. I did attempt to discuss this above, but sadly it was ignored. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Snake skin

Just a thought, perhaps this general hub article is not notable, as Boomslang skin has its own article. While it does discuss Basilisk skin as making a separate appearance, perhaps this should have its own article as it is the skin of an individual snake species. This article was originally created largely as fanon, that was full of real-world information that had no confirmed existence in Harry Potter (but was misleadingly written as though it was). RedWizard98 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified female R member (I)

I would agree unnamed members of R are not in any way notable enough for articles. They are nothing more than nameless background NPC characters in the game. Plus she seems to have a rather overwritten biography for such a minor character, whereas actual notable stuff that needs expanding is bereft of content. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Red-haired young witch's friends

Profoundly generic group of people and therefore non-notable. These are simply unnamed people at Grindelwald's Paris rally. It kind of astounds me that some editors bother to create such unimportant, generic articles when there are hundreds of actually notable pages that need to be created under "wanted pages". RedWizard98 (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Still really not very notable at all. Bump. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, bump. The fact that I am literally the only person who contributes towards this page shows how totally disinterested this community has become. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't notable so I would be in favour of deletion. - Kates39 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they're too generic so the article should ideally get deleted. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been agreed to be non-notable but still not deleted? Why is that? RedWizard98 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, something not notable that nobody has any interest in deleting. Sorry to say it, but this page is a joke. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Potterhead

Article is too small and simply about a colloquial term used for Harry Potter fans. This could arguably be incorporated into a hub article about the wizarding world franchise/fandom. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this could expanded upon? It could focus more on the fandom itself. It is a very popular name for the fandom so it could be added to which would make it worth keeping. - Kates39 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them book launch party and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them book launch invitation

This is an extremely minor event that isn't really detailed, it's only seen in promotional images for Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. For example, we don't have an article for Lockhart's book signing in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, because it belongs to other articles. This can be covered acceptably in the Flourish and Blotts article. Some correspondence from others would be nice for a change too. RedWizard98 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's in the screenplay and film (when Queenie shows Newt the magazine) as well as multiple supporting film books, and it completely distinguishable from any similar events, so yes it's notable. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Remus Lupin's Grindylow

Why do we need an article for literally every single magical creature that ever makes an appearance in the series, even if it's really minor? Someone please explain it to me. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As has been said many times, notability means distinguishability or denote-ability i.e. can this article's subject be uniquely identified. It does not mean noteworthy, which is what you continually argue, that such "minor" details don't deserve an article. As this Grindylow can be distinguished, compared to say trying to make independent articles for every Grindylow in the Black Lake, it is notable and qualifies for an article, just like the thousands of articles we have on minor subjects like Fried tomato vs Tomato, or Jacob's sibling's rat vs Rat, etc, etc. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done Conversation lacks consensus. - Peregino (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Escape from Circus Arcanus

Very questionable notability of this very minor event in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. Firstly, it is not a battle, it was a brief scuffle with no actual combat, it has hardly been edited in several years, is of low importance and can be covered in full on other articles. Recommending deletion or merging personally. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done Conversation lacks consensus. - Peregino (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Slytherin students in the Great Hall (1932)

It's a well-meaning creation, but its coverage is far too broad. Articles about unidentified students should ideally be separate articles, they've hardly got any role to play and there is no evidence they are a "clique". RedWizard98 (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and believe the article should stay, since the group of students had an actual role (even if minor) in the film by interacting with a main character (Jacob). Our notability policy says that unnamed characters with no/few defining features should also ideally have hub pages, so this page does work as a hub page for this group of Slytherins. Castlemore (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the article can be kept but renamed to something more specific so that this group of students can be uniquely distinguished, something like "Slytherin students who gave Jacob Kowalski Cockroach Clusters". MalchonC (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified old woman doing her shopping

I would agree this is not very notable, this is an extremely minor mention and almost nothing is known about this person, such as if she was a witch, Muggle or Squib. Something is telling me the title is perhaps quite poor as well as it is too long and I don't think shopping identifies someone well. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done Conversation lacks consensus. - Peregino (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

All the Young Dudes

RedWizard98 recently placed {{Notability}} into this article, so I'm here to prove its notability:

• The series gains a good media response (read this section).
• The series is considered by a large group of fans and several media (e.g. Screen Rant, AO3) to be one of the best fan-fiction.
• The series is well-known (enough to be an article on Wikipedia).

- Peregino (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I do have a serious concern if MrSiriusBlack deleted this article earlier this year. There should have been some discussion first in my view if this was previously deleted. While I'm not denying some people seem to read this series, the wiki isn't Wikipedia. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It was Kates39, not me. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done Appears to be notable enough. - Peregino (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Newton Scamander's Nundu

Incredibly minor appearance, article Nundu covers this creature in full since it has almost no story, nor any known biological features like its sex, family, name, etc. Not every creature seen in the franchise needs a separate article; low importance. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As noted by Ironyak1 in this edit, it is "not a notability issue - see Rosmerta's dog for instance". - Peregino (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That does not explain why it is not notable. I am contesting it. RedWizard98 (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done Conversation lacks consensus. (see here, here, and here) - Peregino (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Emmeline Vance's wand

Absolutely no notable information about this wand other than its owner, not even any spells cast with it or notable history. Nothing is also known about its creation or characteristics. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Bump, it's the same as every other non-notable wand, there's zero justification for keeping this. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

PotterParty (2007)

This article seems to imply this was one big promotional event, but it quite simply wasn't, it was an unofficial fan convention, which in practise, anyone can hold. There was a local, unlicensed wizarding event in a village in my county, how is that less notable than this? It isn't. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Bump. Seems to be non-notable promotion of unofficial event. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I still request that the existence of this article be seriously questioned. No other indirect mentions of Catholicism previously have resulted in the creation of this page, plus even using a {{Conjecture}} template for something without a real conjectural name in the real-world shows this is rather flimsy. RedWizard98 (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done Conversation lacks consensus. - Peregino (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Grindylows in the Great Lake

There's nothing here upon reading that is really unique, it is basically the hub article with a few slight differences with appearances. This could be easily deleted and merged with the hub article as a result, since that always seemed to fare fine as it was. This does not seem unique or useful, as it is simply a generic group. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done Conversation lacks consensus. - Peregino (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignore the message above. Not sure why someone without rights is going around making judgements on articles. Castlemore (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Catholic Church

This was originally at candidates for deletion but I wish to restart this, since I don't think the deletion tag should have been deleted just down to slow input. It is never explicitly mentioned in the series, especially not by name. RedWizard98 (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed but I will hear others out. Castlemore (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Done: 1.8 Does not meet our notability guidelines: Speculation: not directly named. Based on a quotation about the Fat Friar's "fellow churchmen". Could refer to the Catholic Church or to the people of his church building, but should avoid making speculations of either camp. Castlemore (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Remus Lupin's gramophone

Gramophone is already a member of Category:Remus Lupin's possessions. It only has one small usage and a separate article was never needed, except maybe to boost a user's list of created articles. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I oppose. Today, Harry Potter: Magic Awakened celebrates Lupin's birthday by having Professor Brindlemore tell the players the history of this individual gramophone. This proves it to be notable enough, at least enough to have its own hub article. - Peregino (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I think hub article should be clearly stated in our policy. - Peregino (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done. As Peregino says, this specific item has some importance. Castlemore (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Owl in a common room

Seriously? we're back to Pixies in the room of hidden things or Rats somewhere else. It's a decoration, the owl does nothing.  Silver  Discusión  18:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unidentified black and white horses

There are a lot of horses in Harry Potter which do not have articles, so why are these so significant that they should have one? Considering nothing about them is known, why can't they just be in the ordinary "horse" page, which is a suitable hub page? Castlemore (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I support deletion, this article is very generic. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

American ice-skating children

I struggle to see how these are notable. Castlemore (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I support deletion, these are simply minor background unnamed characters. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Unidentified American boy

I also cannot see how this character is notable. Castlemore (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I support deletion, it's a very minor unnamed character. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Buckthorn family

Since there is only one known member of this family, the article currently does not qualify as notable. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Red-haired young witch's friends

Calling this group of wizards her "friends" is a huge stretch, since these are simply unidentified wizards attending Grindelwald's rally who happened to be standing next to her. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Bump! RedWizard98 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Walter Green, Geoff Hornby, Timothy Sharpe

Given that these names given as incorrect answer options in an online quiz, I am unconvinced that these are supposed to be the names of real characters in the wizarding world. Please also read my message at Talk:Timothy Sharpe. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I felt the same way when I saw these articles. Castlemore (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)