Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogwarts layout

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. Krimpet (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) move to Locations in Hogwarts and rewrite into a more encyclopedic, less speculative tone. Krimpet (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts layout

Complete and total Original Research by fandom - it even says so in the second intro sentence! "contributors have deduced the ___location of every room" Putting your research off-site then coming to Wikipedia is not "published" Doin' it for the shorties 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. DarkAudit 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete Under WP:WAF, this seems to be OR because the sources for the information are the books themselves (primary sources). The article doesn't formally cite the books, but it's implicit. But my impression is that the VAST majority of content in articles about fictional worlds, and the things and places inside them, comes directly from the books themselves instead of secondary sources. (Look at [[Harry Potter {character)]], for example.) I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but deleting this on the grounds of WP:OR still seems excessively arbitrary. Propaniac 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening paragraph admits to the work being original research. DarkAudit 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sentence says that the contributors to the Harry Potter Lexicon website "deduced the locations..." It could just as easily say that they compiled the information. It's not as if they actually went to Hogwarts and mapped out the school grounds themselves, which would be pure OR. As I said in my above comment, I believe this does qualify as OR based on WP:WAF, but I don't think you're being fair in how you're interpreting that one phrase, considering that the article's actual content appears to mostly be objective and taken directly from canon. Propaniac 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft and OR. --EMS | Talk 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite likely WP:ILIKEIT support, it fails WP:OR. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is a classic definition of original research. --Haemo 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Jacek Kendysz 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is entirely original research and has no means of clean-up. Jay32183 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article has no orignal research because it is just extrpolation from the plot, then it fails WP:NOT#IINFO#7 by not presenting any real world context. Jay32183 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not OR. It's a compilation of established information. OR would be character analysis or speculation. --Ellissound 05:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Character analysis on Simpsons and Family Guy characters are also deduced from the plots of their episodes. But this one should at least try to find external sources from multiple perspectives to prove that it is not original research, rather than say fans have contributed etc.--Kylohk 11:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't vote yet, because I'm in two minds. But what else can you use to describe the layout of a fictional castle, if not informations from within the fictional work or secondary sources, who based their information on on the fictional works (like the one in the Harry Potter Lexicon)? This is not about any interpretation of the work, where I believe this Original research rule can be really useful, but about *Facts* mentioned within the book. For example, if it is stated within the books, that the Divination classroom is in the North Tower, how can it be Original Research, to mention this in the article? Neville Longbottom 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, edit: Rename to Locations in Hogwarts or something and remove all evidence of it being a layout diagram. That way, it would be a listing of places in the castle, which have been mentioned in canon, and would not blatantly rip off the Lexicon, whose contributors have spent countless hours deducing on which floors these rooms lie. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without much work, I have transformed the article here to resemble more of a list than a layout. I did not put any effort into its formatting or the lead, but you should get the general idea. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I plan to add more chapter references to it in the near future but, really, it is not OR, it's all there in the novels. Soapy Sunshine 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I agree with the above statement, as information obtained from the books can hardly be regarded OR. There's some useful information in this article, but it does need some cleanup, it seems a bit to formal for an encyclopedic article. I also agree with renaming the article. Monkeymox 09:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, edit per Fbv65edel. Neville Longbottom 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, edit Descriptions of the rooms, and a list of locations as they are given in the books would be nice. It is after all interesting. It is hardly "Original Research" anymore than other pages here are, locations, names, and descriptions are simply being pulled from the book. Some opinions are there that could be edited out.--Talroth 00:09, 14 May 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.