Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themes and motifs in Harry Potter

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. Most of the arguments to keep aren't based in policy or guidelines; whether Wikipedia is or isn't becoming too restrictive isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. --Core desat 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themes and motifs in Harry Potter

It is largely unsourced and consists almost entirely of original research. It has been up for months and no serious action has been taken to revise it Serendipodous 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an excellent example to illustrate my opinion that an attributed article can contain original research. At best, this article falls under the synthesis clause. There is no way to write a neutral encyclopedic article under this title. Shalom ^Hello 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite: there have been enough books written on this subject that we surely could have an article that discusses various authors' views of these themes. Nyttend 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To avoid being original research, and belong in an encyclopedia, this article would probably have to not only be completely rewritten, it would have to have a different title. I can see an article on critical reaction to Harry Potter being appropriate, but "Themes and Motifs" just feels more like something you'd find on a fansite. Skittle 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article uses attributable facts to create new analysis, fails WP:NOR. Jay32183 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally don't have a problem with the article; we should just keep it... but that's just my opinion. DarthSidious 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
Keep The article may need to be revised, but with appropriate tags and warnings eventually someone will take an interest. The article does seem to be active, just no interest in cleaning up...yet. Libertycookies 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTH violation, unnecessary fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep & Rewrite - whereas the article as it currently stands seems to fail WP:SYNTH I'm not convinced that it should be removed. I think the idea of such an article is valid but it must be completely rewritten into an encyclopaedic tone and cite the many books dealing with literary analysis of the series as primary sources. However, I am hovering towards ambivalence on this one and will gladly welcome any attempts to convince me in either direction! Aula ^TPN 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an example of how not to write an article in Wikipedia. If the article is to be kept, it needs a complete deletion of all the text, removing all SYNTH and staying close to the sources. Better to delete and re-create, if someone has the inclination to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically what I suggested. ;-) Aula ^TPN 13:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The "powers that be" among wikipedians are becoming too restrictive in their judgements as to what should or should not be in wikipedia. Every other article is festooned with tags about references and originality and the like. Where did the spirit of anarchy go? If the article doesn't meet with your satisfaction, improve it, don't call for its elimination! Agricolaplenus 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's original research. Elimination is the only way to deal with it. Jay32183 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no original research. Whispe ring 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a synthesis of information forming original research. -- Whpq 16:49, 5 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.