- 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 keep. The article requires significant work. In particular, the secondary sources need incorporating and it needs the addition of real-world perspective. However, the consensus is clear and the issues are a matter for tagging and improvement not deletion. TerriersFan 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a lot of fan cruft and original research, and as such there really is no article here. It should be deleted and redirected to the Universe of Harry Potter for a complete discussion of the Harry Potter world. Judgesurreal777 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per precedent. Just keep nominating articles for deletion until you get your way, is that how Wikipedia works now? Google Books returns over 600 results (yes, many are Harry Potter novels, but many are not). Google News returns 16,900. There are sources. Poor quality is a reason to improve an article, not delete it. faithless (speak) 23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can show some links to some actual verifiable sources, I will gladly withdraw this nomination. Judgesurreal777 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are links to several relevant books on Amazon: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Unfortunately, most of these types of books aren't available for full-preview on Google Books, though I found one that discusses it in the way we need, albeit briefly: [6] But do a non-fiction (to exclude the novels and their various incarnations) search for Harry Potter on Amazon; you get literally thousands of results! There are guides and essays and "Harry Potter and Philosophy" type books out there that cover every conceivable aspect of the series. And we're not talking about some unimportant detail mentioned in passing in one of the books, we're talking about Azkaban. As someone else mentioned, it appears in the title of one of the books, for cryin' out loud! The following don't offer much detailed information, but rather mention Azkaban in passing. The fact that these major media outlets (Washington Post, Forbes, USA Today) can mention Azkaban in passing and not bother to offer a detailed explanation of what it is they're referring to shows how notable Azkaban is. [7] [8] [9] [10] This article Is a bit better, in that it is more than a passing mention. Here "Azkaban" is used in the title of a piece from the Denver Post (yes, it's a blog, but it's not some random livejournal, it's a major newspaper). In closing, I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed by Arcayne in another discussion; first, this is exactly the type of thing that people come to Wikipedia for. They hear the word "Azkaban" somewhere, have no idea what it means, so they come here for answers (I know, I know). Also, if this article is deleted, it won't result in the removal of the material from Wikipedia. Rather, the information will creep into other articles because the place where such information should be has been deleted. It is much more convenient to have this article to point users to so that we don't have to go in-depth on a myriad of other pages explaining Azkaban. Let me reiterate that in its current state, the article isn't very good. But sources are out there and the article can be improved. faithless (speak) 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the term is in popular use, but that isn't the same as notability. If it is used in a lot of articles as a word, great, but that's enough for a dictionary entry; for its own encyclopedia page, we need interviews with Rowling as to how she created Azkaban, instances in the popular culture where it is used, such as when it was mentioned on the television show "The Office". A good article, and especially a featured article, requires many, or at least several very rich sources to use to discuss something like this, and the links you've provided, while good, don't exactly show there is a lot of information on Azkaban in them. It seems like Azkaban deserves a well written blurb in the Harry Potter universe article, not one of its very own. Thoughts?Judgesurreal777 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can show some links to some actual verifiable sources, I will gladly withdraw this nomination. Judgesurreal777 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely Keep Major part of a major series of books. People need to stop nominating every article that they aren't interested in for deletion.--Cartman005 02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable sources? Have you tried the Harry Potter novels which would be the canonical and most reliable source there is? Azkaban is the namesake of the third novel in the series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe what was meant by show verifable sources was show evidence of "significant coverage by reliable indpendent secondary sources" as mentioned in WP:N. [[Guest9999 12:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Keep per the points already discussed here and in other places like this (not specific to this article, but I think Azkaban is pretty high up on the notability spectrum of that list. — xDanielx T/C 11:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That it was kept before does not mean it should automatically be kept again. Remember consensus can (and does) change. [[Guest9999 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Well, we've had this discussion many times. I think the rough consensus is that for topics with very very high notability like the Harry Potter series, significant characters/places like Hogwarts and Azkaban merit their own topics, while topics less significant to the story do not. — xDanielx T/C 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the discussion continues to come up because the article continues to undercut the assertion that there is notability. It needs some references that we can build the article with, and we haven't yet seen a convincing presentation of information to fill in this article. Judgesurreal777 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we've had this discussion many times. I think the rough consensus is that for topics with very very high notability like the Harry Potter series, significant characters/places like Hogwarts and Azkaban merit their own topics, while topics less significant to the story do not. — xDanielx T/C 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, one of the most notable locations in this series and is even in the title of one of the books. "Azkaban" has also entered into popular culture. --musicpvm 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Notable how - just because it is important to the series doesn't mean that it is notable by the standards set out by wikipedia policies and guidelines [[Guest9999 09:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Keep The problems mentioned by the nominator are reasons for improvement, not deletion. And I just removed the original research part. Edward321 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, if for no better reason than it was in the title of one of the books. This is one of those fuzzy areas for notability. shoy (words words) 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This article (as shown by faithless) is a topic seen in many places. There are also references, and only needs small improvements at most. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, if these uses in culture were added to the article, it would help make the article more notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 November 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.