Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legilimency

Legilimency

Legilimency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There is no evidnece on the page that it meets the primary notability guideline set out in WP:NN - or the more specific guideline in WP:FICT, there is no real world content or perspective and the only secondary sources are a fansite [1] and the author's website [2], these are not independent or reliable (WP:RS). It seems likely that a lot of the article is original research this will not change without any sources. Also WP:NOT#INFO and WP:FAN seem to apply as this material would probably belong in a Harry Potter wiki but not an encylopaedia. Guest9999 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Magic (Harry Potter)#Legilimency and occlumency. Wl219 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Cancel AfD. There has been quite a bit of discussion at Talk:Magic (Harry Potter)#Articles suggested to merge into this article about what belongs in its own article. The last book has been out long enough for the encyclopedists to be taking over from the fancrufters, and good decisions seem to be being made. We should let the project settle this out. I will also let them know of this discussion. Matchups 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - and Guest9999, stop nominating every article about something fictional you find. Chandlertalk 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge - The article fails notability. Judgesurreal777 01:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Holy moley, this article is a bunch of OR! Merge it if you must, but there's very little usable stuff here. --UsaSatsui 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely in-universe essay contrived by original research Corpx 06:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per above Will ^(talk) 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• For heaven's sake, Guest9999, will you please actually listen to the points made in other AfDs?? Whether you agree with them or not on the principle of the thing, many editors (myself included) have presented perfectly valid, policy based arguments against parts of what appears to be almost a boilerplate AfD nomination which almost always goes along the lines of "Unverified original research with no evidence of notability". I first echo Xhandler's request to stop playing the bull in the china shop with Wikipedia articles. Secondly, I'll break this AfD down into its main policy arguments. As per your nomination, we have (admittedly severe) concerns over WP:N, particularly WP:FICT. Also from your nomination we have an assertation that this article should be deleted because it is pure WP:OR. Other editors have added (quite rightly) concerns about an in-universe perspective. However for the second time I challenge you to quote me the section of WP:DEL#REASON that permits you to delete this article based on it containing original research, as your three attempts last time seemed to cover just about everything but OR. I quote you my argument from one of your other AfDs:

  the biggest single problem I have with WP:FICT is that it completely and utterly discounts the canon itself as a reliable source (or at least it's interpreted that way). Surely it is incontravertable that the best source of evidence for what, say, the Expelliarmus charm does has got to be the text itself!?! That is Rowling's definitive treastise on the subject! As WP:FICT stands, what I assume it is trying to say (there are BIG problems if it isn't!) is that secondary sources are required for evidence of notability, while primary sources (the books) are satisfactory sources for actual details. If this is not what it's saying, and it's trying to say that all articles about Harry Potter must reference without using the books at all for any reason, then the problems with WP:FICT are even greater than I believe! This is what I believe a lot of people are misinterpreting WP:FICT as.

  to remind you that the majority of this article is only original research if the canon itself is completely discounted as a reference of any reliability, which is preposterous. I suggest to those who wish this article be deleted "because it's written in-universe" that, since this is almost trivial to correct, they actually have a go at improving it. To anyone who argues WP:FICT as a reason to delete this article, I ask you to please re-read it with particular emphasis on the phrase "The article can be deleted only if [options to transwiki or merge] are either redundant or unavailable". And having said all that, I buckle completely beneath the weight of the relevant sections of WP:N and WP:FICT and argue for a merge into Magic (Harry Potter)#Legilimency and Occlumency. Happy-melon 14:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)