Talk: Non-notable articles

Archives
Archive 1 (2012–2022) Archive 2 (2021) Archive 3 (2022) Archive 4 (2023) Archive 5 (2024) Archive 6 (2025)

Please discuss notability reconsideration here

HD 542 AF8, BH 109 EHB, GH 110 AAD

I really question what went through Peregino's head as he decided to create these pages. These individual cars are not notable or deserving of articles at all. This flies in the face of the existing notability rules and it is even more surprising to see it come from a Content Moderator. I have no doubt that he will attempt to justify these pages somehow, but the reality is that every individual car that ever appeared in the franchise does not inherently deserve its own page. Castlemore (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

These cars have license plates, which make them notable as specific, identifiable vehicles. While every car typically has a license plate, none in the franchise — except for the Flying Ford Anglia and these three — are depicted with one. This detail sets them apart from other unidentified cars. Also, which part of the notability guidelines deems this "non-notability"? - Peregino (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Having a license plate does not make a car noteworthy or specific.

A car simply existing does not inherently make it noteworthy.

Plenty of cars have license plates in the franchise, but that's beyond the point. The point is that a single car is not notable.

"The intent of this policy is to increase the informational value of content on the Harry Potter Wiki and prevent the proliferation of articles on low-importance subjects."

The fact that this needs to be explained to you honestly raises a few questions. Castlemore (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Castlemore here, and in my opinion this also applies to some NY buildings created just bc they were shown and have a name, If nothing relevant to the series happened there they don't need an article, at best you could linked their Wikipedia article. We have established this before, no every broomstick deserves an article, and we don't do articles for everything that was seen.  Silver  Discusión  14:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with Castlemore. The cars' licence plate numbers are literally the only thing known about these cars, therefore these articles serve absolutely no encyclopaedic value. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated to the subject being discussed but upon reflection, just want to apologise for how negative my language use is in this conversation. I still believe that this is not notable but I was pretty irritated at the time due to external reasons and did not properly moderate my tone. Castlemore (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries. You were in the heat of the moment. What matters is that we took a step back, realised our mistake, apologised, and moved on. Regarding this discussion, since the majority of the community supports the proposal, I will leave it open for the next 24 hours for any additional input before proceeding with the change. - Peregino (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we could make a general page and put all content there. SeichanGrey (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Castlemore that individual license plates aren't really that notable. I think a better solution would be to create a "license plate" article, and then list the known license plates in that article. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 20:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. - Peregino (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Useless articles

Yesterday I was editing an article named, "Three Broomsticks inn man with a candle" and today I saw the article named, "Unidentified woman in a red dress during the Battle of Hogwarts" Like why do we even need these, these are useless articles, who will ever wonder or think, about these side-actors, they are not required to be mentioned, so I hope these articles get deleted AbhirajV (talk). 04:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The second one, along with Unidentified black wizard during the Battle of Hogwarts, has been deleted. And I'm afraid I can't find the "Three Broomsticks inn man with a candle" article. Please provide the link for the page. - Peregino (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Reading_visitor_in_the_Three_Broomsticks_Inn AbhirajV (talk). 05:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the actor is notably Alfonso Cuarón, despite not being notable, this article is something. I'm afraid such a matter needs further discussion. I'm neutral on this one — let's wait and see what others think. - Peregino (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but the character is not important, while watching POA movie I didn't see him because he is a side character who is not important. AbhirajV (talk). 05:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'd like to stay neutral and wait for other input. - Peregino (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've restored these articles - as stated in Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines, "Articles which are found not to meet the above criteria will be tagged with {{notability}}" so the merits of the article can be discussed, and a path forward such as moving the information to a hub article can be determined. This does not seem to have been done for these articles. Can we slow down on the deleting of information and follow the process outlined in the policies please? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Blenheim Stalk's pocket watch & Category:Blenheim Stalk's possessions

Nothing is known about it, and it's only appeareance is in a depiction of the character. The associated category should be deleted as well, as the pocket-watch is the only item in it. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 12:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I will delete the latter; a category with only one article is not worth keeping. I'm neutral about the pocket watch. - Peregino (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree; there are a number of other pocket watch articles, so there is no reason to specifically target this one as non-notable, when so many others exist. Castlemore (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I will be honest, given the vast majority of Category:Pocket watches are just singular aspects of a character's costume with no plot relevance whatsoever, I would also recommend they get deleted as well. The list in the Pocket watch article covers the various character's pocket-watches well enough. As an example: all the information from Sirius Black's pocket watch - "Sirius Black used to wear a silver pocket watch on a double-albert once he returned to 12 Grimmauld Place while on the run from the Ministry of Magic." and all the information about the same pocket-watch from the Pocket watch article: "Sirius Black, who wore a silver one on a double-albert as well. He wore this on a waistcoat, after he moved into 12 Grimmauld Place. It is unknown if it was with his other possessions there, but as he probably was given it when he came of age, it is likely."

The information is quite literally the same. (Incidentally, Peregino, can you delete Category:Gulliver Pokeby's possessions since it only has one article in it as well.) AD Vortigern (talk to me)

Some pocket watch articles should not exist, as they are no more notable than an article about a random outfit, if there is any. However, those with unique designs, non-conjectural titles, distinct stories, or other special circumstances should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, articles like Hogwarts Express conductor's pocket watch (design), Milo's pocket watch (story), Sirius Black's pocket watch (design), and Albus Dumbledore's pocket watch (design) are worth keeping, while others may need to be removed. - Peregino (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, apologies If I was unclear, I don't think every article in Category:Pocket watches should be deleted, just those who's only information comes from the fact that it was part of a character's outfit. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 18:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Now let’s return to the pocket watch discussion and leave the one below for another (upcoming) discussion. - Peregino (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

---

So the Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines are a "blacklist" of article types that were decided to be non-notable like one-hit wrock bands and indistinguishable wands like from the LEGO games. Outside of these defined categories, subjects are considered notable even if there is only a single sentence about the topic. Having separate articles, like Sirius Black's pocket watch in addition to list articles like Pocket watch allows for using categories to group the articles in various ways such as Character X's possessions, silver objects, Articles with information from Source Y, etc. I hope this reasoning helps explain why the policies are what they are and why every individual editor can't just determine that they don't think the article is "important enough" to keep or not. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The guidelines state what is not notable, and that doesn't mean everything else is automatically notable. For example, if I were to create an article on Albus Dumbledore's left eyeball, it wouldn't be acceptable at all, even though it's not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. The guidelines only specify what is certainly non-notable, while everything else is determined by common sense on a case-by-case basis. - Peregino (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Well said, Peregino. The wiki isn't a bureaucracy with statue law and it should be determined by whatever the consensus of the day is. Castlemore (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

We are all bound by this wiki's policies, not Wikipedia's - if there is consensus to change them, that is doable, but we don't get to just ignore them whenever we like. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The trouble is, which should be clear by now, is that there is not a single "common sense" and every editor has a different sense of "notable enough" as shown by the constant debate here. The notion instead is to consider articles not covered by Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines notable by default so that more information is available instead of less. Just because a particular editor doesn't think a background actor, or film prop, or briefly mentioned item is important enough doesn't mean that everyone else agrees so in order to serve the greatest numbers of readers it is better to preserve such information than to delete it. This is why the wiki has articles on Hard-boiled egg, Painting of a caged monkey, and (speaking of eyes) Alastor Moody's magical eye and Staring glass eye, and many, many, other minor or already-covered-in-another-article details from the series. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I can understand that, however the problem is there isn't a single sentence mentioning most of these pocket-watches. Sirius (to my knowledge) never mentions his pocket watch or even uses it to check the time, thus I don't see how it can be considered notable. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 18:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It's notable because we know it exists in HP canon - there's really nothing more to it. There often seems to be a confusion that editors think being notable requires being noteworthy, but that's not really the case. If it's a person, place, thing, or idea that appears in HP canon, it is considered notable, but may not end up with a separate article given the requirements outlined in Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines. If you feel there is some way the guidelines need to be modified to determine what items are "important enough" to have a separate article, that would be a discussion about changing the Notability guidelines and probably best held on its Talk page. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Then I guess a discussion needs to be opened on Harry Potter Wiki talk:Notability guidelines, but for now, before that discussion even takes place, we have to continue with the approach that has always been used: on a case-by-case basis. The entire idea you mentioned about "the notion being to consider articles not covered by Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines notable by default" is your logic, and I’m not saying whether you’re right or wrong, but one thing for sure is that an authoritative message from an admin does not make the logic official. - Peregino (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

"the approach that has always been used: on a case-by-case basis" - even if this has become common in your time here, this has not always been used, that's my point. I'm trying to explain how the wiki has operated over my time here in the last 15ish years, why the policies are what they are, and how we've come to have articles for Fish egg and grass and several thousand other minor details. There wasn't a constant debate on every article as to whether it was notable enough or not for the current set of editors - it was notable by default and only when certain categories of articles came to be determined to be too numerous and too minor were they added as non-notable to Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines. As you said elsewhere, "almost anything confirmed to exist within the franchise deserves an article" - that aligns with long-established processes that the presumption is towards a topic's notability and the completeness of coverage for all details in the franchise. The evidence of this logic is all around us and explains the existence for the majority of the wiki's articles. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Gold Gobstone

Solid gold Gobstones are a common type of Gobstone that exist in the WW. They're mentioned in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 4 (The Leaky Cauldron), and I don't think it needs its own article, the Harry Potter: Magic Awakened story just needs to be added to the Gobstone article.  Silver  Discusión  16:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that there is no significance to having pages for each individual type of Gobstone. Castlemore (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I created the article because It's my understanding that gold Gobstones are the only type of Gobstone that are always referred to by the material it's made of. Additionally, given that this specific type of Gobstone has two appeareances in canon, that's enough for it to remain, imo. AD Vortigern (talk to me)

I also agree that having separate pages for individual Gobstone is unnecessary. - Peregino (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. - Peregino (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Rose Granger-Weasley's wand

The notability policy is pretty straightforward that wands don’t deserve their own articles unless they have specified characteristics… Castlemore (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Peregino put a link on Rose Granger-Weasley's page which made me create it. Then, he deleted it and rewrote it himself. User:ILR79/Talk sig 10:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, if Rose's wand's page should be deleted, why did the page for Delphini's wand exist before I did this edit: Delphini's wand: Edit 1943444. User:ILR79/Talk sig 10:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I deleted the article because its quality was too low to be kept as-is—it needed to be entirely rewritten. Deleting and recreating it was simply the more efficient approach for me, and the result is effectively the same in terms of content management.

As for notability, I strongly disagree with suggesting this article be deleted on that basis. This is the same case as Delphini's wand. According to the policy, an article is considered notable if "something notable is known about it other than the spells cast, such as particular design or a changing of loyalty". This wand clearly meets that standard due to its unique design, so it qualifies as notable. - Peregino (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Mirror of Erised victims

While fixing this article, created by PremetheusZX, to meet the wiki's layout guidelines and standards, I find the its notability questionable. The only source of the subject is the description of the Mirror of Erised: "Men have wasted away before it."

Premetheus here seems to interpret "men" as specific individuals, while I see it as "people" in general — something like "people have wasted away before it". For this reason, I'm bringing this up for discussion: is the article notable and valid to stay, or not? - Peregino (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. 'Men' is not notable enough on its own, even if it isn't just a synonym of 'people' (which it most definitely is in this case) and if we ever do get details on any of these 'men' they would just get their own article. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 12:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with deletion; it is indeed a vague statement referring to people in general. There is no encyclopaedic value to be had from this. Cheers -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  22:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. - Peregino (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Oxford Traveller Series IV, Vauxhall Victor FC, Vauxhall Viva HB, Wolseley 1500, Rover 200

Forgive me if I am a bit confused. I am reminded of an earlier discussion where we agreed that pages on individual cars were not noteworthy – yet a contributor in that conversation has then gone and created pages on individual cars.

"I agree with Castlemore that individual license plates aren't really that notable. I think a better solution would be to create a "license plate" article, and then list the known license plates in that article."

– AD Vortigern

Yet it is AD Vortigern who is creating pages on individual cars despite a community consensus against this?

Is it not possible to put all of these cars into the larger hub page for cars, in a gallery? They hardly constitute much encyclopaedic value on their own, each with the exact same descriptions.

But even then - from a logistical standpoint, how are we doing that? To keep the wiki consistent, will someone take it upon themselves to take snapshots of every single car that ever appeared in every piece of Harry Potter media, just to fill this gallery up? Seems a bit onerous and unnecessary. Having a gallery purely for TV show cars seems a bit strange - same with having pages only for TV show cars.

I feel as though creating these pages bites off more than we can chew and we should just stick with the idea that individual cars do not have much encyclopaedic value, and we should keep the wiki Harry Potter focused. Just my two cents. - Castlemore (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The articles AD Vortigern created are about models of cars, not individual cars. As far as has been discussed in the wiki history, there is no consensus that car models themselves are non-notable, and in my view, they are not. However, in the specific articles by Vortigern, I can't find anywhere that confirms which car model they are; their sources only establish that those individual cars exist in the universe, which has been deemed non-notable, as Castlemore explained above.

I would like Vortigern to clarify the source for these car models, as the current references only confirm the existence of individual cars. If the names of the models have been explicitly stated in an official, reliable, and Potter source, I have no objection to the articles remaining, but if the car models are derived from research based on their appearance, that information, having not been confirmed in the universe and being based off speculation, is non-notable and will be removed from the wiki's mainspace immediately. - Peregino (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I did create the cars based off of the make and model instead of license plates, I apologise for not making that clearer. And to Peregino, yes, I did do original research, however I am 100% certain that the make and model matches the cars depicted. I object to that making them non-notable, however, as there are many articles on this wiki which would be considered non-notable by that standard. HM Treasury building, London Eye, and Canary Wharf, just to name a few, are articles on subjects which, to my knowledge, haven't been named 'in an official, reliable, and Potter source', but remain nontheless. And to answer Castlemore's question, then yes. To quote Ironyak in a post above us, "It's notable because we know it exists in HP canon - there's really nothing more to it." Now I can't say if it'll be possible to get 'snapshots of every car', as you call it - the only reason I was able to identify these cars is because I have a mild interest in 'historic vehicles', which in the UK are identifiable by a black number plate, - but I can say that if a car is depicted in the HPTV show, I'll do my best to identify and create an article for it. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 17:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, there tends to be a common interpretation that Notable means Noteworthy, and with that interpretation, the argument becomes what topics are "important enough" to merit their own article. But the requirements given for canon topics in Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines are largely about being able to Denote one topic from another i.e. are they Distinguishable (wands that have unique/notable features, characters that can be titled in a way to uniquely identify them, etc). The guidelines only specifically note "importance" criteria for Fandom related topics such as wrock bands, fan sites, etc... The discussion about hub articles versus individual articles has always been done on a case-by-case basis, given the specifics involved.

Not saying that is the best or only way to do things, just the solution used historically. While more clarity might be useful for the Policy, I agree that it may be hard to find consensus on how to judge the "importance" or "encyclopedic value" of any topic in advance. The wiki tends to value more information over less, and let individual readers decide if it's of worth to them or not. In addition to examples of capturing real-world details like Canary Wharf is Vauxhall, created in 2010 by a major contributor who ultimately served as a Bureaucrat here.

In short, these car articles appear to both abide by policy and fit in with other long-standing articles. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This has to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, as Ironyak1 says himself. I also want to remind everyone that the notability guidelines only state what is definitely non-notable for frequent cases, and they don't make articles that don't fit into those categories immediately notable. In other words, not everything that abides by the notability guidelines is notable, and that is fact and final, not an opinion to be overthrown.

We discuss this on a case-by-case basis. Articles such as London Eye are subjects of definitely certain design that scream what they are. We see the Eiffel Tower, that's the Eiffel Tower. They are deemed notable because of this certainty. Some other articles, such as the location articles I created a year ago, weren't deemed non-notable despite being, like the car articles which deletion you're objecting to, something/somewhere that we know exists and has been 100% researched. The point here is that when it comes to notability, the wiki discusses each of them on a case-by-case basis. If we are to discuss this, it will be on why these car models are notable.

I will say that these car model articles are not notable. Car models, of course, are notable as I've explained above, however, these specific articles you created are speculative, and just that. Oxford Traveller Series IV, for example, could have been many other things: 1958 Morris Oxford, 1957 Morris Cowley, and a lot more, because they all have the same design. Who are we to just make a car a specific model when it's not even certain? This is an encyclopedia, and we don't throw speculations around and pretend they are factual. I agree that car models are a notable subject, and I've recently created one myself, Lotus Turbo. But these specific articles are not, because in cases where a subject can be many things, we must not assume they are one of them unless it's stated canonically. This is the key difference between Oxford Traveller Series IV (which is not notable because it is speculative and could be many things else) and Lotus Turbo (which has been canonically stated). - Peregino (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance - but Peregino, you seem to have a sudden knowledge of classic cars. Is everyone now a classic car expert, or are people just using ChatGPT to ask what these cars could be?

I always wonder this, especially when I see pages created en masse for extremely niche topics (e.g. the 'plover' discussion). It is very easy to ask ChatGPT what something is, and make a page on it.

We should probably cut down on such behaviour. Not everything needs to be analyzed with a magnifying glass to find out what it is (especially car props). Castlemore (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

To answer Peregino, there are small design changes that are noticeable between different models of cars. To take the Oxford Traveller IV, it can't be the 1958 Morris Oxford because the number of windows don't match. The Traveller IV has 8 total windows, whilst the '58 only has 6. It can't be the '57 Cowley because the detailing on the side doesn't match. See here for the swoop detail on the the Traveller IV in the video I got the image from and here for the 57' Cowley from the same angle which doesn't have the same detailing. This is an image of the Traveller IV from Wikimedia which also shows the swoop detailing and the 8 windows, compared to an image of the '58 Morris Oxford, which again, only has 6. And to answer Castlemore, I didn't use ChatGPT, nor would I consider myself an 'expert', I merely own a couple books with pictures of classic cars which I consulted. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 16:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

No AIs, actually. I just put the image into Google Images and wrote a few names that popped up. I honestly don't think AI chats should be used to clarify something, especially when it comes to contributing to an encyclopedia. That thing tends to change its answer from back and forth when you ask "Are you sure?" Not very reliable.

These articles are 100% based off real-life fact and out-of-universe research, and as long-term encyclopedia editors, we should know better than anyone that unless the subjects are specifically called (e.g. Lotus Turbo) or clearly are something in a canonical source (e.g. London Eye), there is no confirmation that it is it. Now, they have not been called by such model name, for what we know, so let's skip to the second part. How can you be so sure that in-universe, these individual cars are of those car models? Sure, in real life, they are those models, but how can we be sure that the same information applies in-universe? These subjects relate to brands, which are personal businesses, and unlike the London Eye, the existence of their specific models isn't necessarily a public, self-evident truth in the fictional universe.

Unlike universally recognisable public landmarks (e.g. the London Eye), commercial products lack a guaranteed in-universe canonical existence. Since specific product models are based on private business decisions, they may not exist or may have different names in the fictional universe. Therefore, we should only create subjects for these items once their in-universe existence is officially confirmed. Therefore, the models we see may not actually exist or could have different names in the fictional universe and thus we should not create subjects for them until their in-universe existence is officially confirmed. - Peregino (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

1. ::::::I was wondering if this was where you were coming from as it raises much bigger issues. Historically, much of the HP Fandom and the wiki assumed that the Harry Potter world was the same as ours, but as anachronisms have built up over time, it would seem it is more like a closely related parallel world. As such, I agree we do not how close to real-life the HP Universe abides and so we can't state canonically the name of many items that have been inferred from visual depictions that happen to match objects in real-life. The question becomes, where to draw the line? (the London Eye could actually be the London Wheel, or Big Whirlymagig, or any other name in the HP universe of course - there is no rule that it must be the same as in our world so why assume so?) With the TV show approaching, the wiki will be given lots and lots of objects only depicted visually and never explicitly named so how can we properly infer what they are called? If we cannot infer that these cars have the same names as our real-life versions, then there are many, many articles that would need to be reconsidered under the same criteria. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I support deletion first. If not, merge into a hub. Bare bones material that seem incredibly speculative, and it is a bit hard for me to support for the moment. Maybe my opinion will change. SeichanGrey (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Peregino - Your argument doesn't seem to be about notability but rather about speculation? That would suggest editors add more sources, BTS info, etc to better explain the topic, but doesn't bear on the articles being Non-Notable though. The Notes and references section is there to help explain sources and inferences, as AD Vortigan did above. Personally I think people bringing their outside expertise to bear on an article adds value to the wiki, as long as they also bring sources so the claims can be independently verified. As we don't really know how the topic of these articles will feature (or not) in the show, it seems like leaving them as stubs to add to as warranted makes sense for now IMHO. Much like the 2010 Vauxhall article, these real-life details may prove important in noting the timeline of the TV show and help identify any anachronisms that arise.

If the Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines are lacking then it probably makes sense to figure out how to improve them rather than leaving every editor flying in the dark as to what is currently considered "Important Enough" to warrant an article and having to undercut editors' efforts without clear rules to cite which can be understood and followed by all editors. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've been pointing out the lack of speculation. However, there is a difference between speculation on a part of the information, which deserves a note in the behind-the-scenes section as you suggest, and speculation on the subject's identity itself, where confirmed existence is nowhere to be found. What models those cars are is 100% speculative, a point you will understand by reading my most recent message above. This means the subjects may not even exist, and I'm sure you would agree that a subject whose existence we don't even know is in-universe does not warrant an article.

As for an improvement of the notability guidelines, Castlemore has recently taken the initial step and started a plan to discuss it with the community, as you can see on his talk page and mine. I will be responding to that soon when I make up my mind and form the words about it. But until that is discussed to a conclusion, possibly goes through a vote, and is updated into the policy itself, we will work with what we have: a case-by-case basis and how the wiki handles notability and speculations. - Peregino (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if, as a temporary measure, for identifiable articles which exist in the real-world but haven't been named, we should add the {{Conjecture}} template at the top. Indeed, this was something that I was curious about when creating the articles, because to my understanding, we are technically conjecturing the names of these articles. I think, on this wiki, there has been an attitude of 'if it's named that way in the real-world, then it must be named that way in the HP universe', but as Ironyak pointed out, that's not necessarily true. I know it's not really a perfect solution, but perhaps it's something worth thinking about at least. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to weigh in on the thread about individual cars, hub pages versus separate articles, and how the Harry Potter Wiki’s Notability Guidelines apply in this case. I believe the current policy supports a more cautious approach toward creating standalone articles for cars, and here’s why:

The wiki’s Notability Guidelines state that:

• The purpose of notability is “to increase the informational value of content … and prevent the proliferation of articles on low-importance subjects.” harrypotter.fandom.com
• Articles about “unidentified subjects” (e.g., characters, items, vehicles) should only be created if there is unique, specific information that can distinguish them from other instances of the same type.
• Excessive speculation or inference rather than verified in-universe naming or usage can undermine the case for notability.

In short: The mere existence of something in a film/game is not automatically sufficient to justify a separate article unless it is distinct, named, and meaningful in-universe. For example - the car of an identified character is more notable than a car that is just part of the backdrop of say Godric's Hollow that we know nothing about beyond "this car has this color, and is model so and so".

In this discussion, the cars in question are identified by real-world make and model based on appearance, not by a clearly named in-universe model. That means the articles rely on out-of-universe inference, rather than an in-universe designation or role. Which is okay. And why it is okay is something I will get back to momentarily - but the point is that the policy requires articles about unidentified subjects to have at least one distinguishing piece of information — e.g., “this vehicle model is explicitly named in the canon”, or it plays a major, repeatable role. Here, it seems the identification falls short of that criteria.

Given those facts, a more appropriate solution might be a hub page (e.g., Vehicles in the Wizarding World → Cars) where the film/game cars can be mention-listed, rather than each getting its own full article. Unless we're talking cars of identifiable characters like Vernon Dursley. Etc. This approach would both align with the policy’s aim of curbing low-importance proliferation, respects that the cars exist and may be of interest, but doesn’t elevate them to standalone status without stronger justification. Reduces workload and duplication that editors will have to maintain, which was a point raised in the original argument.

Parallel universe theory

On Ironyak’s view that the Wizarding World might be a “closely related parallel world” (hence real-world car models may not map directly), I would like to direct everyone's attention towards the fact that this is not a diegetically supported or editorially necessary interpretation. The Harry Potter canon consistently situates the wizarding world within the same Earth and historical timeline as the Muggle world, albeit hidden from it. The series is built on the idea that a magical society secretly coexists with our own, non-magical one, not that it diverges from it in a separate continuity. Apparent anachronisms or inconsistencies - like specific car models, fashions, or bits of technology showing up earlier or later than they did in real life - are better understood as creative oversights or artistic liberties, not evidence of a distinct universe. Sloppiness does not another universe make: So unless an official source explicitly establishes the contrary, we must default the same Earth, same timeline assumption the canon itself operates on.

That distinction matters, because it means we can draw from real-world references for identification when appropriate, as long as we are careful not to state speculation as fact. A car that visibly matches a real-world model can, unless there's a canon source that explicitly contradicts it by naming it as a different model, be treated as that exact model in-universe. This approach avoids overreaching into headcanon while still allowing readers to make informed comparisons.

I also want to emphasize that the notability and accuracy issues being discussed here are two different things. “Notability” on the wiki doesn’t necessarily mean “importance”, as others have noted. It’s about distinctiveness and verifiable existence in-universe. However, when a subject’s identification depends on out-of-universe conjecture, that undermines verifiability, which is the real issue. So while an article on car models known by name in canon (e.g. the Lotus Turbo) is entirely justified, a page that asserts a specific real-world model based solely on matching design features goes beyond what our canon policy supports. Finally, I agree with Castlemore that the practical and editorial workload should be considered. The standard we apply to cars should be consistent with how we treat other unlabelled real-world objects. We don’t make separate pages for every uncredited painting, chair, or lamppost seen in the background unless it’s named or contextually relevant. A hub page for “Vehicles” or “Cars in the Wizarding World” would allow for that information to be preserved and contextualized without creating dozens of stubs based on speculative identification.

My recommendation

1. For now, I support merging the speculative car model pages into a single hub/list page.
2. If in the future a car model is explicitly named, described, or given special significance within the wizarding universe (films/games/books), then a separate article can be reconsidered with proper sourcing.
3. In the talk pages of those articles, we could retain the inference discussion under a “Behind the scenes / speculation” section, clearly marked as such, so readers can trace the reasoning without treating it as official.

That’s the approach that, I think, best honors both canon integrity and editorial consistency. Ninclow (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Vortigern, conjectural articles are articles about a subject that has not been named canonically or in-universe so we make up a descriptive name for it. For example, Unidentified French policeman and Hermione Granger's scarf. A conjectural name describes the subject by the information we have, not by using a proper name, especially basing on the real world. If a name were to be conjectural, it would have to be something like "Unidentified car model (I)" not a real-world model name.

As I have explained above, unlike a public landmark such as the London Eye, a car model is the property of a private business and associated with a specific brand. Therefore, matters such as copyright exist and may prevent the source material from identifying subjects of that brand. While this might not happen frequently, it is a reason that makes it possible for the cars to not be the real-world models in-universe, thus making them "unidentified car models".

So, 1) to the best of our knowledge, they are unidentified car models. 2) they do not hold enough encyclopedic value as separate articles. For those reasons, I now agree with Ninclow that these articles should be merged into a single hub article, which I would recommend naming "Unidentified car models". In this hub, we can note in each car's behind-the-scenes sub-section which car it is in the real world. That is a fair and professional approach & middle ground: the information is kept, encyclopedic value is upheld, there is no 100% speculation, and the possibility that they are indeed those real-world models is noted. It's a win-win.

In addition, as for the notability matters, Ninclow, nice touch. Perhaps we can discuss the meaning of notability and encyclopedic value on the wiki's guidelines talk page :) - Peregino (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Whilst I understand what you're saying, I think you're misinformed about something. The London Eye is a brand. London Eye is copyrighted by London Eye Management Services Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Merlin Entertainment. It may be a publicly recognisable landmark, but it remains a brand nonetheless. Per your own argument, that would make the article something along the lines of 'Unidentified ferris wheel', so I don't think that the articles should be deleted or renamed on that basis alone. I agree with Ninclow's suggestion of a hub article, however. Given the contradictions that are already arising between the films and the books, I feel it would be useful for it to act almost as an extended BTS. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 15:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Trying to be brief: @Ninclow "*Articles about “unidentified subjects” (e.g., characters, items, vehicles) should only be created if there is unique, specific information that can distinguish them from other instances of the same type." does not require an article topic be "distinct, named, and meaningful in-universe." That's the whole point - the topic must just be clearly distinguishable, but does not need to be directly named (too many examples of articles of this type to list).

@Ninclow "The Harry Potter canon consistently situates the wizarding world within the same Earth and historical timeline as the Muggle world, albeit hidden from it." There are actually several deviations in the canon from the real world - many discussed on Dating_conventions. How to reconcile these becomes an issue in itself which has implications no matter the resolution. The wiki doesn't have a distinct policy on this same/parallel world matter, but there are issues of interpretation that are tied up with whichever stand one adopts.

Overall, I agree with AD Vortigan that there are a variety of terms that would need to be defined and methods determined on how to score the articles - these terms include "encyclopedic value", "significant", "meaningful", etc... Otherwise we're just changing discussions about Notability into discussions about other equally nebulous terms with no way of determining whether any given article meets these criteria.

As for these cars, some of this content could be moved into pre-existing articles like Vernon and Petunia Dursley's cars, some could be renamed with conjectural titles, or could be part of a hub article. The argument seems to stretch from these car articles don't have enough "encyclopedic value" (undefined and unquantified) to "matters such as copyright exist" (how does a Hub article address this?) so it's not clear what solution makes the most sense. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

After a really long discussion, despite varying opinions, I see that everyone agrees on the same main point, which is the a hub article. For that reason, if there are no objections, the individual articles will be merged into one. Cheers. - Peregino (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Ironyak1 I get what you’re saying, but I think we’re talking past each other a bit on what "distinguishable" actually means in policy terms.

Yes, the notability page doesn’t require something to be named, but it does require it to be uniquely identifiable in canon. That’s a big difference. The rule about “unique, specific information that distinguishes it” doesn’t mean “anything we can guess from how it looks.” It means that, within the universe itself, there has to be something that clearly sets it apart from others. In the case of cars, we're talking about things like ownership, purpose, dialogue reference, or repeated mention. If we’re just matching prop cars to real-world models because they seem to line up visually, that’s not canon identification; that’s out-of-universe speculation, which the notability policy explicitly tells us to avoid.

So - while the wizarding world is set in the same Earth and timeline as the Muggle one, and thus shares the same real-world objects and makes, the key point is what’s narratively distinguished in-universe. Recognizing a car’s make or model is fine for accuracy, but that alone doesn’t make it notable. For a topic to warrant its own article, there needs to be something that marks it as significant within the story itself. Like a name, ownership, or repeated mention. A background car, even if it’s a real, identifiable model, remains just set dressing unless the canon singles it out in some way.

And on the broader question of worldbuilding consistency - yes, there are many small deviations between the wizarding and Muggle worlds, but most of those stem from creative liberties, a lack of research, or production constraints, not from genuine canonical divergence. The Harry Potter canon situates the magical world within the same Earth and timeline, merely hidden from Muggles. That means our task as editors isn’t to reconcile every minor anachronism, but to document them when relevant and lean on the canon policy: tier-one sources (the books and Rowling’s writings) overrule contradictions from tier-two or tier-three sources like films and games.

Take the example of the camera phone in the Half-Blood Prince film for example. That's an obvious anachronism. The film, set in 1996, shows a Muggle taking photos with a phone during the Millennium Bridge attack, even though the first commercial rrera phone wasn’t released until 2000. That’s clearly a production oversight, not a shift in canonical technology. The books make no mention of such devices, and if they existed, it would be completely out of character for the Dursleys not to reference or flaunt them. Rowling’s word and the books’ internal logic take precedence; film details that contradict those should be treated as non-canon.

So when we’re talking about something like the cars, the logic follows the same rule. It’s fine to identify the model if it’s visually clear and real - because the canon "Muggle world" shares our material culture - but we don’t treat that identification as a basis for independent notability unless the narrative does something meaningful with it. Otherwise, we risk confusing prop documentation with worldbuilding, and that’s not what the notability policy was written to do.

In short: it’s not about defining “encyclopedic value” in some abstract way — it’s just about sticking to the wiki’s core principle that canon comes first, secondary material follows, and speculation doesn’t make the cut. Ninclow (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we're talking past each other a bit, partly because there are several arguments being made by several individuals all under the notion of notability. I'll try just to stick with the points you are raising.

"In the case of cars, we're talking about things like ownership..." - The Rover 200 was owned by Vernon Dursely in HPTV. Does this fact make this particular car model Notable? Lots of articles are just prop documentation really, such as The Pilgrim's Progress, Albus Dumbledore's Latin parchment, Dragon figurine, etc, all of which detail background objects that serve no narrative purpose.

If the concern is that we don't actually know it's a Rover 200 (despite its distinctive design in the real-world), then how can we speculate/infer that London Eye, Canary Wharf, Leadenhall Market (and thousands of other unnamed but visually depicted subjects) are in fact named the same based only on how they look, much like with the cars?

As for anachronisms, the London Eye did not exist in the real-world in May 1998, but did exist in Harry's world at this time according to tier-two canon. Because of the wiki's interpretative framework we don't call this non-canon or a mistake, but rather an anachronism, or something belonging to a different time than in which it actually exists. Given the large number of anachronisms, I'm not sure how you can say that Harry's world and ours are on the same timeline, (other than to just call them all non-canon errors?) Another solution to these issues is to have separate timelines for the books vs the films, which also makes logical sense and many HP fans tend to favor.

To be clear, there isn't a right or wrong way to perform these sorts of interpretations, I'm just trying to tease out the logic involved that allow some editors to be confident in saying that these car models cannot be inferred from their real-life counterparts, but many other places and objects can be, as the answer to that is going to be important as another visual interpretation of HP content is presented in the coming years. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, Ironyak1 - to claim that “there isn’t a right or wrong way” to interpret these things actually runs the risk of turning canon-based editorial decisions and discussions into popularity contests or personal guesses. Notability and encyclopedic value aren’t about opinion, they exist to ensure the wiki is informative, consistent, and grounded in the Harry Potter universe rather than in individual speculation. And the wiki’s operating principle is that the books/Rowling take priority - there’s a tiered canon system (books/Rowling at the top, films and other licensed media lower), and the policy explicitly treats Rowling’s word as the ultimate arbiter. So we don’t treat every film detail as equally authoritative.

That means that while films and games are useful sources, per our canon policy they’re lower tier than the books and Rowling’s statements. We do not need to assume the film has rewritten the fundamental timeline of the books unless a higher-tier source (the books or Rowling herself) actually says so. In practice, an anachronistic film detail is best treated as a productional oversight/artistic liberty, and a tier-two claim, not automatic evidence that the entire wizarding timeline differs from the books. Notability decisions should follow that hierarchy - document it, tag it as a non-canon anachronism, and only re-evaluate if a higher-tier source confirms it.

Besides which, adopting the “every film prop = canonical timeline change” stance only leads to chaos. If we let every production detail create its own timeline revision, we’ll end up with contradictory claims across media and have to pick and choose anyway - which defeats the point of having a tiered canon system. The clean, defensible approach is to document the anachronistic details in the films as treat it as candidates for non-canon tags and clarifying BTS notes rather than immediate revisions on what's seen as canon or not. That both preserves useful info and avoids elevating speculative identifications to full canonical status. Ninclow (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Viktor Krum's broomstick

See the precedent for deleting indistinct broomsticks here. Unless the broomstick possesses some sort of unique capability that others do not, then it is not notable, per the aforementioned discussion. Castlemore (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't see a good reason for it being an article unless there are very specific attributes or mentions of the actual broomstick, which this article doesn't have.  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       22:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I also agree.  Silver  Discusión  23:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't wrong use of sources, or wrong sources. It was sources used right, and the right sources from the books. (chapters, pages numbers). As the source for the info, I used PDF files for the Goblet of Fire book. The process wizards use, and described in the case of Viktor, are the same and similar (such as wands and broomsticks) in the school setting; he either had one and upgraded it to make it better, or he had two and the first was a unprofessional one, as its either X or not X. I said the Snitch used in the world cup was faster than regular snitches, because Rowling implied she was inspired to base it on real world sports and in the real world sports in question, athletic teams use different basketballs in professional basketball than training for example. It doesn't sound or look like noncanon, Alastor Moody has a page on his broomstick.PremetheusZX (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It meets existing editing standards and content standards on the constitutes a page and how its written, as other pages use the same or less quality than this. I used the format from other wikis from similar genre and rules and some pages on here to outline the page. Now it's another question on whether or not the other pages should've done it, but if me doing it and copying their method doesn't satisfy policy, then those other pages should be looked at. Again, Alastor Moody has a page on his broomstick, so if that can be a page a page and not merged, the same can be applied to this one. If your going to add templates to the page to discredit or delegitimize it, then come be a part of the discussion otherwise it makes it look like you don't know what your talking about. It's easy to over-tag a page, but it's harder to form an argument that you have to defend fully. PremetheusZX (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't take what other editors point out as negative criticism, as the Harry Potter Wiki is an open community and we all try to improve it. I'll point out the sources that I consider were used wrong, the templates exists so any editor can fix the mistakes made in the article.

First, it's being mentioned on the article that "Viktor Krum triumphed over the team playing for Romania" citing chapter 5 from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, but this is incorrect as the text in the book Charlie says "I wish England had got through. That was embarrassing, that was." "What happened?" said Harry "Went down to Transylvania, three hundred and ninety to ten". Charlie is talking about England falling against Transylvania the conversation about Krum has already pass and the score is 390 to 10, not 190 to 10.

Second, use of speculation. The Wiki always tries to use the best known facts about the characters and topics in the Harry Potter universe. Yes, we know Krum owns a Gregorovich wand, but assuming that the broomstick he's using in the World Cup is the same he got when he was about 11 years old (time when wizards usually get their wands) is highly speculative, same as stating that he went to a "marketplace" when we as readers don't actually known what magical streets exist in other countries other than London and Paris, nor we know how they operate, those speculations need to be remove and use only known facts even if they're minimal.

 Silver  Discusión  23:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't take it offensively and I'm not offended, I'm open to hosting debates and taking part in them as well doing argumentation on the offense and defense on if something is a theory or fact, but sometimes users will clip a page with a tag without stating their opinion and backing up their position.

• • On the England thing, the way it was mentioned, I thought they were still talking about Viktor, as a Bulgarian, saying how good he was, and that he beat someone, such as the Romania's Translyvannia thing that came up, who are competitors in real life, I believe.
  • If there's correction that is needed, then so be it, but I thought it was stated that all Hogwarts students get all their supplies from Diagon Alley, and seeing as there's a Slavic wandmaker that hands out wands to students in Europe, it stands to reason that there's a Slavic broomstick shop, which on a common sense technicality, the argument would assume a broader form that there's regularistic and naturalistic norms that govern how students learn (students uses quills, their called students, teachers have educational positions, wand makers are apart of wizard marketplace, etc). This is instinctual and basical which doesn't need to be litigated unless there's ultra effects and ultra phenomenas, such as destruction/disruption to the foundations or unless there's proto/quasi foundations to observe, as discussed. For example, would Bulgaria provide their students with the right equipment but not all of it? One of the most important questions of all is, how is the word speculation defined and what method was used to create the defintion?

I'm not adverse to information being updated to enhance it, removed if incorrect or unnecessary, but if it's the layout or wording in question, I've seen it on this wiki and others.

PremetheusZX (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to always abide by the standard of "assuming good faith" when contributing to a wiki. Editing and adding templates to pages isn't personal; it simply the day-to-day contributions that aim to improve our content as whole, as well as expand reader's understanding of the Harry Potter universe. All of these are practices that have been around for years. The point of "clipping/tagging" pages with templates is to do exactly what you propose: generate discussion. After all, the templates quite clearly state that "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." Obviously, as the creator of the page, it can be hard to see your work being criticised, which is understandable, as you clearly spent a decent amount of time publishing it.

At the same time, however, the page (in my opinion, and it seems other may agree) is not currently up to our standards. The reason that other pages such as Alastor Moody's broomstick and John Dawlish's broomstick exist is that they have clear mentions in the series or very identifiable attributes (e.g Moody's allowed him to sit upright, and Dawlish had his broom stolen from him). Krum's broom is never mentioned directly as far as I know, and from what is stated from your article, all we know is that Krum had a broom. Personally, I am not a huge fan of Ginevra Weasley's broomstick for this exact reason, but I digress.

Furthermore, as already pointed out by JLSilver, the article is filled with speculation and assumptions. We have very little information about Bulgaria as a country in the wizarding world and its layout. We cannot assume that one marketplace houses all of a Bulgarian student's essentials like Diagon Alley does for British students, nor can we assume that Slavic norms are the same as British. We also can't just assume Bulgaria has these things because Britain does. In the real world, would going to buy school supplies in America be the same as going to buy school supplies in Iran? TL;DR Just because something could be true doesn't mean it automatically is, and based on what we know of the world, countries have very different ways of doing things.  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       02:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Deletion supported by the community; Done. - Peregino (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Porlock at the Magical Creatures Reserve

There is currently no sign that this creature has an associated story or side-quest appearance or mention in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery from what I am aware of. It is certainly possible that I might have missed something, but if this creature has no appearances or mentions outside of being obtainable in the Magical Creatures Reserve, there is thus a lack of confirmation that it officially "exists" in the canon and it should therefore not have a page until it gets a proper appearance or mention outside of the reserve mechanic. There are still a few other creatures whitelinked on the template that don't have their own pages because they don't have an in-universe appearance or mention outside of the reserve, and I can't find any indication as of yet that the Porlock is any different. Logo8th (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Support. AD Vortigern (talk to me) 17:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. - Peregino (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)