Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikibook Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter has a page on the topic of: Timeline

Chronology of the Harry Potter series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is chiefly an original compilation of plot summary.This is a meticulously researched, meticulously annotated timeline based entirely on primary sources or unreliable secondary sources. Save for a fansite, the Harry Potter Lexicon, when an independent source is even acknowledged, it is used as grist for conjecture. Character ages (and thus birthdates) are a common example of this. The rest of the time, this is slicing the sheet of the plot into ever-tinier tiles, and arranging them into an intricate mosiac, when the plot of the novels is already covered, in great detail, in the articles on the novels themselves as well as the articles on every single character as well as the articles on every single place as well as the articles on the setting as a whole.

This goes vastly beyond summarizing the plot. This covers every single thing that happens, be it "shown" on the page or implied by events, mixing the obvious with the conjectural willy-nilly. One-off jokes or minor factoids from lesser works are mixed in with major plot points, with no distinction between the two. No attempt is made to place this in the context of the real world, other than occasionally pointing out which work of fiction an obscure factoid came from in order to quell fan disputes.

A pair of similar, now-deleted timelines are the Buffyverse and Metal Gear timelines, both of which were meticulously researched from the works of fiction, arranged into wholly original compositions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer - Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars‎. As there has been much discussion covering similar topics on two separate AfD pages, in order to determine clear consensus, I ask that the closer take all the comments from both discussions into consideration of both closures. - jc37 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Isn't there somewhere we could send this? Isn't there a Harry Potter wiki somewhere out there? It definitely doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I would only support deletion if there's nothing that could be done with this work. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already a similar, more-detailed timeline at the Harry Potter Lexicon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, delete as not useful to another project, as well as clearly being a failure of policies for articles here. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any useful information into Harry Potter (series), then redirect and/or transwiki to either Wikia or a sister project. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no referenced info to merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I refuse to believe it can't be referenced, though. The HPL, for example, was vetted by Rowling herself as accurate enough for her to double check plot minutae. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Then just add it to another article once you find the reference. Dumping a bunch of unverfied stuff somewhere is no help, but if it can be verified, just use that source for a different article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom for failing WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any reliable part of this article would be a complete duplication of an existing source. In this case it would be better to point to the source (Lexicon) rather than trying to copy all its material.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most-excellent nom argument. Eusebeus (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PLOT and the opening argument. Dalejenkins | 09:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per very thorough, policy-based nomination.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A summary article like this can rely on the primary works--but it doesnt have to , for the are multiple suitable secondary works by now. It is not affected by NOT PLOT, which refers only to the total coverage at WP of a topic, not individual articles. I think usefulness is a reasonable consideration for summary articles like this, though not , of course, more generally for articles about more specific things. The reason it's useful, as it seems not to be clear to the nom., is that the individual novels reveal various parts of the backstory, and having it in one place is helpful. True, it does go into the rest, but even here, the significance of events in the early books is elucidate or even changed in the later. The other deletions were wrong as well, and to the extent they are precedent, should be reversed. If one want to follow them, one could differentiate this as even more notable set of works. That material is available elsewhere is not a reason to omit it here. Even that its available on the web in more detail is not reason to omit it here. We're a general encyclopedia and appropriately have less detail than more specialized sources, such as the one AMIB mentioned. Butt o omit everything in that source could equally be used as an argument for eliminating all the articles on the series. DGG (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So what content in this article is sourced to a reliable, independent source?

  What content in this article isn't plot summary or conjecture? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just because there is plot-related information on a page, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. In addition, as long as (among other things), there is no synthesis involved, primary sources are indeed acceptable sources, per WP:OR. While there are those who may not like it, the information would seem to be "notable", especially if this list page is considered a "spin-out" of the main article. Noting, of course, that there is currently no consensus to delete spin-out articles in this way. (As Man in Black knows, I think. Per the last several polls, and the ongoing debate at WP:NOT concerning WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:Notability (fiction), among other places.) I have only ever seen one argument that goes beyond "IDONTWANTITHERE" concerning "in-universe" information in articles (by User:Hiding - which was, I believe, to be wary of fair use/copyright infringement). So if you have information concerning that, great, let's discuss it. Otherwise, there is simply no reason grounded in policy for why this information should be excluded. - jc37 01:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What info here isn't plot summary or conjecture? Certainly just because there is plot summary in an article is no reason to delete, but there is no content that is not plot summary here...

  ...except for the conjecture. According to what authority are these the exact ages of the characters whose exact ages are never given? According to whom do we decide that when there's a contradiction, this interpretation is canon instead of that one? From what authority do the evaluative claims in this article originate? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything not explicitly stated in the source (which can then be referenced as a primary source), or stated by "experts" in secondary sources (which can also potentially be referenced), or possibly even information recounted in tertiary sources (which can also potentially be referenced), may be removed as potential WP:OR. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that something unsourced (in the case of non-BLP pages) needs to be immediately deleted. A bit of fact checking should be all that's needed. (And repeating the comment about how AfD isn't cleanup...) - jc37 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So that leaves us only with plot summary already present in other articles, or trivial historical facts not necessary for understanding any of the various published works. You can't argue "It's not all conjecture!" when all that's left when you strip away the conjecture is redundant plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think that's the weak point in your argument. The definition of "trivia". And no fact was "minor" while the books were being published. Everyone was trying to assemble facts and information from the text. And even though the series is now "finished", and many things hidden are now revealed, at Wikipedia, we're supposed to keep in mind that not everyone may have read the text, yet.

  And, I'm not sold on the "duplicative information" argument. We duplicate information all over Wikipedia. There are quite a few articles on quantum mechanics that immediately come to mind.

  And isn't that how Template:main is supposed to be used? Have some information here, then expand upon it there. Due to WP:SIZE, among other things.

  As an aside, since we (and others) are discussing similar topics on two separate AfD pages, I think to fairly determine consensus, the closer may need to take both into consideration of their closure. I'll place a note about that shortly. - jc37 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a justification to copy every single story detail onto Wikipedia. We summarize, and the perspective of history is an advantage. With this perspective, we can summarize the plots of these novels the way we summarize the plot of every single other novel on Wikipedia, instead of taking the plot of all of the novels plus some minor books plus a family tree sold in a charity auction(!) and stirring it into a big stew of random factoids chosen for their importance to the fictional universe and not the one that my cat lives in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per jc37 and DGG. This is an extension of the Harry Potter article. Would anyone question the real world significance of the base article? In a paper article this would be a section of a huge Harry Potter article. In Wikipedia, where we have unlimited room, we can have subsidiary articles about subsidiary subjects like this. And where is it better to point outside Wikipedia than to bring the information here after a thorough putting into our own words? We are building a free storehouse of all human knowledge, not a referral service to other sources. Other problems are amenable to sourcing and writing. And with the notability of Harry Potter beyond question sourcing and rewriting should not be a problem. Cheers Dlohcierekim 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is questioning the notability of the base article. Instead, people are questioning whether we need the plot redundantly repeated and arranged in this way. Wikipedia has unlimited room but not unlimited scope, and our scope does not include original compositions or endlessly repeated plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plot repetition, and possibly original research at best. Articles like this are better suited for fan wiki's, not Wikipedia. Harry Potter is notable, but when content is just repetitive and overlapping like this... it's not within the scope of Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I had to remark on this comment. "Articles like this are better suited for " ... place/web site/publication/group of people ... ", not Wikipedia." This is true for every single article at Wikipedia, at least for somebody. Also, every content in Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual replication of some source that is (hopefully) believed to be factual correct and as unbiased as possible. But this is also what an encyclopedia is for.. an aggregation of verified/verifiable and reliable information that already exist. The question is "What subjects the encyclopedia tries to cover?", which determines what should be included in it and what not. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent article upon a notable topic for which there are numerous sources. As for the nominator's hectoring repetition of the point, "What info here isn't plot summary or conjecture?", this is easily refuted by reading the article as the first 5 paragraphs are neither plot summary nor conjecture. Has some editor has improved the article since it was nominated or did the nominator not get past the title? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the first five paragaphs, and it's a rambling, awful lead filled with references that cherry-pick off-hand mentions in various publications that have nothing to do with this timeline. This simply says that the Harry Potter novels are set in the real world with a fantastic overlay. This is a pseudonymous author with an entirely different timeline cited simply to note that days of the week aren't always correct. This is a BBC article being cited simply to note that one of the obscure primary sources that this list is founded upon actually exists. And from there on out, it's all works of fiction, HPL, or the occasional other fansite.
  All of the hits in that search are books that use "Harry Potter" and the English words "timeline" or "chronology." But, hey, super-keen thanks for accusing me of not reading the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It now seems that you are misreading it by selectively ignoring the parts that don't fit your argument. But we're discussing the whole article here, not just parts of it, and so your point fails. Please retract these fallacious repetitions or shall I rebut them each separately with similar tiresome repetition?

  Sorry. You'll have to actually refute my arguments, not merely threaten to refute them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of references, and this is a notable series, that spreads across many books and films, and other media(games and such). A timeline is perfectly valid for series such as these. Very useful and encyclopedic information to look up, if you had a question or an interest in such things. Dream Focus 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is nothing but Harry Potter's plot sourced primarily from primary sources or unreliable secondary sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are referring to the Lexicon, you are mistaken. This is authoritative, as discussed by this article in the Montreal Gazette and Vancouver Sun: "Rowling herself says she’s been known “to sneak into an Internet caf while out writing and check a fact (at www.hp-lexicon.org).” At her own site (www.jkrowling.com), she calls the Lexicon “a website for the dangerously obsessive: my natural home.”" These newspapers summarise this authoritative timeline and this demonstrates both the accuracy and the notability of this material. There is no substance or evidence to support your assertions so please retract them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a newspaper article that mentions HPL as one of several sites to read to catch up for the last Harry Potter novel, and excerpts the exact same timeline this article is chiefly based on. The fansite is lent some credence by being cited by the Montreal Gazette, but we're still at parroting a self-published theory of how to cut up and rearrange a plot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it be preferable to you if I were to support its deletion saying only that "[t]his is nothing but Harry Potter's plot"? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep from what I got from the discussion so far, is that it is about whether or not this subject should be included in Wikipedia. Since I didn't hear a statement that says something like "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia about XYZ" and by doing that excluding certain topics and subjects, I'd say keep it. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not include original research or non-notable theories or redundant plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Its not original research, everything referenced from a primary source. And where does it say in any wikipedia rules that you aren't suppose to have redundant plot summaries? Dream Focus 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Interpreting primary sources in an original way is original research, and "This is how the timeline fits together regardless of the contractions" is an original claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obvious synthesis and original research from primary sources. We don't do these here. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep adequately sourced by the texts themselves and essential for a WP user to make sense of the large family of HP-related articles spread across this site. JJL (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The timeline isn't exactly convoluted. The novels go in order of release, save a few overlapping flashback scenes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Naturally no problem transwikifying to an appropriate HP wiki. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous closely related AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (delete), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 6, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination) (keep), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination) (no consensus)

• Delete, purely plot summary, while we already have plenty of plot summary for the Harry Potter novels in their separate articles and the character pages. Adding info on how the plot summary was achieved does not constitute real-world coverage of the chronology, only background. Fails WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a copyvio. We are quite clearly in breach of WP:NFC. Specifically:

2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

• It doesn't get much simpler than that. Hiding T 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: First, I'm not sure how that applies here. (I can only guess atm.) Would you explain? And also, I'm sure I missed it somewhere, but would you please link to the copy in File namespace?

I strongly support Chronologies (for the various reasons noted above). However, if we're in violation of NFC, I'll likely switch to delete on those grounds. - jc37 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cut and paste as properly as I'd like. The first mistakle a lot of people make is in assuming that non-free applies only to images. It actually applies to all non-free content. A plot is non-free content. That's how it applies. We're basically infringing upon the commercial opportunities a copyright holder has in exploiting their work to produce such a chronology and sell it. We're giving it away for free, basically. Now, we can use non-free content minimally, so we can use points within the chronology in relevant articles, but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage. So you can say in an article on the character Harry Potter that he got a scar on his head at this point, that's minimal usage. The minimal extent is only to use as much of the plot as is needed to illustrate or facilitate understanding for a reader. And finally, non-free content must be encyclopedic and meet content standards. So it needs to be in keeping with the manual of style, and with Wikipedia:Non-free content, which notes that it is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. The key point here is derivative works, which are defined as being an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. The only legal justification we have for making derivitaive works is that of fair use, but that involves demonstrating transformation. We fail here somewhat because what we have created isn't new. Now it can be argued that WIkipedia might possibly get away with publishing this stuff, but that's not the point. The point is that we have commercial reusers, so it isn't enough that we can get away with it. On Wikipedia, our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So that's the basis for my thinking. Hiding T 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the paste (especially since we're both responding in two separate discussions).

The key sentence seems to be: "...but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage." - Are we certain that this is the case? I mean no slight whatsoever, but rather want to get to the heart of this. Because what you're saying would then seem to apply to geneological tables (family trees) as well as quite a few other lists. So it sounds like we really need to know if this is legally accurate (and since IANAL, and sincerely don't know, but would like to find out). So, next stop User talk:Mike Godwin? - jc37 02:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense would it be like a family tree? You can't copyright a family tree, since it is material within the public domain. Showing the timeline is not minimal usage to my mind, because the point of the article is to show the timeline, not to discuss the impact of the work. Our whole usage of copyright material rests upon a fair use defense, which means we have to offer critical commentary and use copyrighted material when it is vital to the points being discussed. But yes, this has applied to lists in the past, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM lists. Also see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4. This article could, with teh offending timeline removed, likely stay if the consensus is that the first two sections are not in violation of WP:OR. But the timeline is a copyvio. Hiding T 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stricken, not so sure of my ground now, actually. I've left a few remarks, but given points made at WT:NOT, I've made a u-turn. I think it probably is a matter for teh foundation. I reckon we should probably just avoid copyright paranoia and let the board take the lead on this issue. They'll be able to source better opinions than mine. Hiding T 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been asked to expand on this, so I will. First point is that WP:NFCC specifically states it applies only to "copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files", so it does not extend to text as I mistakenly assert above. The second point is that the level to which copyright law covers specific um, "fictional facts", is unclear. Plot itself is not subject to copyright, but creative expression is. Basically, the only place that will ever determine whether we breach copyright or not is a court of law, and ultimately it is therefore a call for the board to make rather than for me to make. The board reserve the right to take down any material which they do not believe would be defended in court using fair use defense criteria, so I think they have to take the lead on on summarising and infringing fictional works which are subject to copyright. I retract my assertions as flawed and perhaps subject to copyright paranoia. Hiding T 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sorry, this is original research. Very well executed and painstakingly compiled, I'm sure, but still original research. Yintaɳ  22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Decided to strike my vote above for a number of reasons. First, Dlohcierekim's comments on OR below. He's got a point. Second, the ever-increasing number of similar compilations and lists that the WP community apparently is so eager to keep. Like this one, for example. I mean, compared to that the Potter chronology is almost useful. This is not a "keep" vote. I'm just striking my contribution and ask for it to be ignored. Yintaɳ  21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on OR and expansion of my rationale for keep. Or is it a well cited chronology? NO OR exists to keep people from publishing their theses here in the guise of an article. This not the case here. The creators do not compile and synthesize information to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly in the sources. They do not cite themselves. This is not OR, the use of primary sources does not make it such. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Once again, we are building a storehouse off all human knowledge. Dlohcierekim 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of rationale for keep-- do not merge. Merger would unnecessarily reduce the amount of information on the subject. As we are not a paper encyclopedia, we don't need to truncate/sacrifice/butcher in order to cram into a handy Funk and Wagnalls sized volume. Though I must say my Funk and Wagnalls looks handsome in my bookshelf. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion that this is the chronology of the series and bugger all the contradictions is not a conclusion stated explicitly in the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article make this claim? It acknowledges the contradictions, but I don't see it trying to explain them away. DHowell (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It explains that such-and-such facts contradict with the timeline, then proceeds to offer the timeline that contradicts with them anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Merely a massive amount of plot tidbits, in-universe details, and trivia organized into a giant list. Absolutely doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are independent reliable sources covering this subject. For example, this article from Book magazine has substantial coverage on the timeline. And this article from the Waco Tribune-Herald comments on the timeline as presented by the Harry Potter Lexicon. Further, why isn't the Harry Potter Lexicon considered a reliable source? Because it's a website? That isn't the standard for judging sources as reliable. The site is acknowledged by reliable sources as well as the Rowling herself to be reliable. Also, "original compilation" is not the same as "original research": Every single article in Wikipedia is an "original compilation" of information from sources, if it isn't a copy of a public domain source or a copyright violation. And I don't see this article making any original conclusions. Contrary to repeated assertions by those arguing to delete, I don't see any explanations of contradictions in this article that aren't backed up by sources. Name one, please. DHowell (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not considered a reliable source because it's a single author's selfpublished work. If he'd published it as a book through one of the publish-on-demand publishers it wouldn't be any different. As for the cited sources, they're addressed above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. Haven't actually commented on that Book magazine review. What part of this is a timeline or commentary on a timeline or has anything to do with timelines? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A topic which has books written about it almost certainly should have an article here. Meets WP:N. A merge would perhaps be reasonable other than the size of the articles involved would make it a disaster.Hobit (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Which books? If you could point them out, it'd probably change things a lot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some of the basic information listed under Events could probably be sourced directly to the novels or the odd statement made by the author. However everything in the sections on the Timeline basis and Contradictions appears to be original research. Starting from the first sentence there are already problems "The official timeline is rooted in a date cited in Rowling’s second book" - what makes the timeline official - it appears to have been pieced together by Wikipedia editors not published by anyone who holds the copyright to the books, their content or their characters? From Wikipedia:No original research: "an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Pretty much everything that frames the list of events is based on interpretation of some form or another and without that framework the page is just a list of plot details - not an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.