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 delete as excessive plot summary. Merge/redirect has a strong following here too, but the suggested merge target is also currently up for AFD. If that page is kept, there should be no problem with a redirect to it being created in this space. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second battle of Hogwarts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a summary of part of the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Rather than shorten the enormous plot summary there, editors decided to create an article on this fictional military battle. The page completely ignores both the manual of style and what Wikipedia is not. The material is too redundant and excessive to be merged, and since the title is in dispute, it shouldn't be redirect either. Wafulz 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this article, it makes sense and is about an important battle which needs describing.
• Transwiki to Wikibooks where Deathly Hallows can have as crazed a summary as Half-Blood Prince does. Phil Sandifer 14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing to be said about this battle other than a plot summary. The main plot summary should be made an appropriate length, not split into subarticles. If there is enough to say about the battle to warrant an article (public response, etc) then the article can be recreated, but I doubt it will be necessary. --Tango 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the article into the main article, if anything. Significant deaths occur in the Second Battle of Hogwarts, and they deserve recognition. It is noted above that the material is "too redundant and excessive to be merged", but it clarifies event progression in the novel as they occur. Reputation 15:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So why exactly should the deaths be reiterated? This isn't Sparknotes.-Wafulz 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with you on that. Beyond recognition of the deaths that occur, it is merely an excessively detailed plot summary. Reputation 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Unnecessary as an article, but it seems a likely search term. No reason readers shouldn't be sent to the article on the book. Carom 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. This is coverage of a fictional even that has very little coverage "out of the universe" Corpx 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It seems unlikely that this battle will ever receive significant coverage in reliable sources.--Yannick 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge, to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.--JForget 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I understood the battle better when I read this synopsis. Also, I don't think it breaks the Wikipedian style because it contains the battle template.Xammer 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The battle template is a key violation of the Wikipedia style, since real world templates should be reserved for real world things. An appropriate fictional templates should headline things like author and book title. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes_and_succession_boxes--Yannick 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not right, the Manual of Style says just that trivial details should be avoided in fictional thing infoboxes, not that real world thing infoboxes should not be used in fictional thing infoboxes. And that battle template is used in LOTR battles (see, for example, Battle of Osgiliath).Xammer 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant items to to Second Wizarding War. Will ^(talk) 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There may not even be anything to merge, given the size of the plot summary on the book's page. Deltabeignet orm. perhaps 17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if shorten, keep if the merged article will become too long. George Leung 17:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Anything useful should be in the Deathly Hallows book article. It has now been renamed but there is so much OR around at the moment - where in the books is anything called "The Second Wizarding War"? Sophia 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Keep/RedirectThe information will probably re appear over time, so it probably needs to be moved elsewhere, in a different form. Perhaps, as the book was only released two bloody days ago, information will become more reliable in the future.Ravenmasterq 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - into Second Wizarding War, as the Battle of the Department of Mysteries and the First Battle of Hogwarts are already described in that article. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but not to Second Wizarding War, which is itself problematic (it's a term that appears nowhere in the books). Claudia 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Second Wizarding War. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Second Wizarding War Skhatri2005 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it might be better to do some editing first, to get the various articles into some sort of coherent shape. Two days is not enough time yet to resort to deletion. DGG (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe we should remove the battle infobox, but I still feel like this is a very significant event in the Harry Potter series and that it deserves its own article. Whatever though, I'll go with whatever you guys decide.Epmatsw 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Second Wizarding War Its already there. Carlitos 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Shorten-I do think it needs the page, as it would clutter the Deathly Hallows page, it really is too long. Therequiembellishere 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Second Wizarding War — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 05:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Second Wizarding War is also up for AFD Corpx 06:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Second Wizarding War NighthawkLeader 09:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. Even provide a little information there. Not your grandmas account 10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I feel that this is an extremely important part of the series, and is very significant, although, the infobox could be changed or removed.Spec ops commando 10:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is not without precedent. In the Star Wars Universe both the Battle of Endor and the Battle of Coruscant have their own pages and in the Star Trek Universe there are numerous entries for fictional battles such as the Battle of Wolf 359Eamon1916

• "Precedent" implies that those articles have been nominated for AfD and survived. This is not the case. Those articles should also be deleted as essentially being plot summaries.-Wafulz 12:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Battle of Endor makes sense as an article - but it should be an article on the ways in which the event has been covered in films, games, etc - not a summary. As this event has no out-of-universe significance, it is particularly inappropriate for an article. Phil Sandifer 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article shouldn't exist solely because others do. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not every chapter of HP deserves its own article. This is an unwiedly plot summary that mixes fan interpretation with Rowling's text with no distinction. Destroy it. Star Wars battles are covered not just in the movies but in numerous "expanded universe" type materials, like trading card games etc. They actually have enough information that they can be written from material considered canon, rather than infered or added by fans. JK just doesn't give that kind of depth, and probbably intentionally. They are very different works. Savidan 18:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Savidan is correct; this is plot summary liberally mixed with personal interpretation. Don't try to merge this with Second Wizarding War, which is on its way to a delete result at its own AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! - There is nothing wrong with this article other than possibly a rewrite. That being said, it does not deserve to get a complete axe as it does explain the defining point in a multi-billion dollar literary series. Do not merge. Provide a basic background on the Second Wizarding War page with a redirect link in the pertinent section to the Battle of Hogwarts. There's no solid reason to delete this, judging from previous votes on this page. Auror 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So how is it not an expanded plot summary, entirely in-universe? How is it not original research based on its title and contents? It takes more than a rewrite when the article is fundamentally flawed.-Wafulz 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still support the rewrite as it deals with falling in line with expanded plot summary so that it offers, "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." If you demand it be deleted because it violates original research, then the vast majority of the Potter content on Wikipedia would be deleted as well in order to ensure even enforcement. I reject the claim that a simple overview of the Battle must be considered original research merely because the article does not cite a published secondhand source from another entity than that of the reader. To wait for a secondhand source for this article is foolish as all that is required for a comprehensive article is available within the population of Wikipedia contributors who have read the pertinent selection within the Deathly Hallows. If you desire an agreement as to what to include in the summary, fine. Rewrite it to fall in-line with the standards as detailed earlier, and you'll have no cause to delete this. Reference Battle of the Pelennor Fields from Lord of the Rings for an excellent template for a better article and one that evidently has drawn no calls for deletion. Pelennor Fields is not greatly different in the context in which the Battle of Hogwarts article ought to be rewritten, and they are both summaries of fictional events (evidently wholly original research, something questionably taboo - but apparently acceptable for Pelennor Fields?) with references only to the text to boot. Auror 13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copy of main HP page. Non notable subject to have its own page! By the way, the name of the battle is "The Battle of Hogwarts." Why do people think that it is the "second?" It clearly states this in the book! Dewarw 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is used to disambiguate between the first engagement in the Astronomy Tower in the Half Blood Prince. Can you explain how Battle of the Pelennor Fields is notable enough for its own page? Auror 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain why you think Battle of the Pelennor Fields, which has not been assessed for deletion yet, is an appropriate comparison? Pointing out that other stuff exists does not remove the flaws from this article. Pelennor Fields (and other articles) will be examined later- I'll probably make a village pump post.-Wafulz 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no point in merging, as the material is the same on both pages! Dewarw 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure why this article should be so strongly suggested for deletion when there are many other fictional battle articles out there, of no real superior quality. For instance, Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Battle of Bywater, Battle of the Hornburg and Battle of Osgiliath (all Lord of the Rings) have never been nominated for deletion as far as I can see. Mark ^(Talk) 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Each article should be judged on its own merit - See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While it is true that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, he has a valid point- he's using "notability by comparison." Both LOTR and HP are well-known/expansive works of literature, and have WP articles that serve as plot summaries of their most important(/notable) events. Furthermore, Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That's circular logic. If that article is nominated for deletion, it could be argued that it should be kept because this one exists. If that article is in violation of policy, it should be deleted too. Corpx 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This article is very extensive on the matter. Looking at the amount of information it provides, I would have no doubt that many people might think of it as a great source (I know I did). I can't find a reason why it should be deleted either, what it really needs is a minor cleanup. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ::Also, before anything is deleted, let us seriously take a look at what links to the article, because a lot of things link to this article. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article could probably be redirected to the more formal Second Wizarding War -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While we are discussing The Lord of the Rings's battle pages, should we list them for deletion as well? If this page gets deleted, then I think the others should be (or merged). This is because the LOTR battle pages are very similar to this HP page. Is there any way for the Afd debates to come to this page instead of creating multiple debates with duplicate arguments?Dewarw 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the pages, I agree. What do others think? I think that we should reach a consensus on this page first before committing to about 5 Afd! Wrawed 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just a plot summary, a retelling, not an encyclopedic article. It can never become an encyclopedic article. Remove all this in-universe, fannish plot detail, and what remains? Nothing! -- Ekjon Lok 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it has a lot of good info, and it's going to be used a lot
• Merge into the Second Wizarding War article, should fit in well there. At a glance it appears that a good deal of this article is already there, in fact. Nazgul533 ^{talk contribs} 03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the book's article already has a synopsis of that battle, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be retelling a story. Lilac Soul 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect, seems like a useful redirect but a separate page for it seems like excess. Axem Titanium 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, this is merely one chapter of a book that already has its own article. Marc Shepherd 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by default. If dozens of Star Wars battles, most of which aren't in the movie or are briefly so, have their own articles, then why can't the defining battle of a series that's sold a third of a billion copies get one? If it violates rules, then you have a bunch of other articles to dismantle as well. Kazmarov 20:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then we dismantle those articles. If Article X violates policies and guidelines, and Article Y does too, we don't use them to justify each other's existence.-Wafulz 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to second wizarding war (where it exists as a section anyway). Sandpiper 20:57, 26 July 2007 (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.