Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubotuber
Bubotuber was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP.
More non-notable Harry Potter fancruft. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of the real universe, not an encyclopedia of every fictional universe. --BM 22:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Please point out where Wikipedia is an 'Encyclopedia of the real universe', I must have missed it. There's 23 'What wikipedia articles are not' and Fancruft isn't one of them. Xezbeth 22:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancruft is VfD short-hand for one category of article that is non-notable, or "nn": fan trivia. (In this case, hyperobsessive fan trivia.) You won't find non-notability in the list of 'What wikipedia articles are not'. However, notability of the subject is the hallmark of an 'encyclopedic' article, and that is listed. --BM 22:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep for completeness. No other article will be placed at this title - it does not clutter. It is factually accurate and varifiable. --Oldak Quill 23:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't believe it's hyperobsessive fan trivia. Harry potter is extremely widely read, almost all readers will have heard of it. -- Robert Pendray 00:05, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- People will have heard of it, of course. Does that mean that Wikipedia needs to incorporate the Encyclopedia of Harry Potter Trivia, with 2000 or more articles on every minor feature of the HP Universe, including the plants? Aren't there fan web sites for this cruft? --BM 00:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You are missing the point of Wikipedia - it is not a paper encyclopedia - therefore it can never get to full. Nor can a subject ever be improportionately covered - Wikipedia is always growing, and improportion is only noticable through "Random Page". Therefore the only criteria which we should use (unless we believe ourselves to be infallible) should be factual accuracy, varifiability and occasionally clutter. The articles I am submitting are factually accurate - they begin by describing that the object comes from Harry Potter, afterwhich I describe them within the context of this world. You can varify the articles by reading a copy of Harry Potter (I can dig up page references if you so wish). They certainly do not clutter - no other article is likely to fall under the name 'Bubotuber'; if one does this will likely be secondary (so Bubotuber (Harry Potter). Thus, there is no reason to delete the article - it is a waste of your and our time: the article does no harm. --Oldak Quill 01:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've read Harry Potter. All 5 of them. This is mentioned as a sort of aside, to make the herbology (or something) class repulsive and boring. The information is better presented togeter with other little bits of similar information, so that people don't have to go running all over the Wikipedia to find the information on the Flora and Fauna of the Harry Potter Series. It's not a matter of totally expunging the information from the Wikipedia, it's moving it to a more useful location (in my opinion, anyway). hfool 03:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The number of plants/animals in Harry Potter would easily exceed 32kb - even if only substub descriptions were included. Redirects would be coming from article names such as this - it'd be far wiser just to use the article space. People would not have to "[run] all over Wikipedia" as categories and lists would easily link the articles. --Oldak Quill 10:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've read Harry Potter. All 5 of them. This is mentioned as a sort of aside, to make the herbology (or something) class repulsive and boring. The information is better presented togeter with other little bits of similar information, so that people don't have to go running all over the Wikipedia to find the information on the Flora and Fauna of the Harry Potter Series. It's not a matter of totally expunging the information from the Wikipedia, it's moving it to a more useful location (in my opinion, anyway). hfool 03:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You are missing the point of Wikipedia - it is not a paper encyclopedia - therefore it can never get to full. Nor can a subject ever be improportionately covered - Wikipedia is always growing, and improportion is only noticable through "Random Page". Therefore the only criteria which we should use (unless we believe ourselves to be infallible) should be factual accuracy, varifiability and occasionally clutter. The articles I am submitting are factually accurate - they begin by describing that the object comes from Harry Potter, afterwhich I describe them within the context of this world. You can varify the articles by reading a copy of Harry Potter (I can dig up page references if you so wish). They certainly do not clutter - no other article is likely to fall under the name 'Bubotuber'; if one does this will likely be secondary (so Bubotuber (Harry Potter). Thus, there is no reason to delete the article - it is a waste of your and our time: the article does no harm. --Oldak Quill 01:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge to an appropriate article; is Ecology of Harry Potter extant? Harry Potter does in fact exist, and is in fact widely read, but the description of the plant makes it sound like it doesn't even have much influence on the books, let alone the influence on the real world that would justify its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do we have an article on Creatures from Harry Potter or somesuch? Merge to that sort of article, otherwise delete. hfool 00:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge to some suitable general title; such as those already suggested. Rje 01:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect only. I've read all of the novels, and this is minor to the point of utter insignificance. Will people "have heard of it?" Well, yes, if they're reading the HP novels. Will they hit a reference to it in the New Yorker and wonder what it means? Will it be a crossword puzzle clue? Will it be a reference in a poem? Will it be a bon mot dropped by a toast master? Will anyone who doesn't already know what it is need to know what it is? No. Geogre 05:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Even for an "Encyclopedia of Harry Potter", this would be borderline non-notable. I just finished re-reading the Harry Potter books over the past two weeks, and I couldn't tell you where in the series this comes up. --Carnildo 09:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into something like Plants from Harry Potter or Potpourri from Harry Potter or Harry Potter's junk drawer. I am against outright deletion, however. Gamaliel 09:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. BM where are you quoting "Fancruft is VfD short-hand for one category of article that is non-notable, or "nn": fan trivia" from? I have no recollection of that being policy, and as such is not a reason for deletion. Dan100 09:59, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Dan, if you read through this page for a few days, you will see that "non-notability" is the main reason that articles are deleted, along with vanity and advertising. "Non-notability" is the main way in which articles are not "encyclopedic", which is specifically mentioned in the deletion policy. The "-cruft" suffix denotes various types of trivia and non-notability, "fancruft" being one of the most common. The article under discussion is "fan-cruft", meaning non-notable trivia. It is beginning to seem to me that what gets deleted as "fancruft" depends on who is voting on VfD on any particular day, and that, indeed, there are numerous people who think all fancruft should be included. Shouldn't there be a consensus on this, rather than every VfD vote rehashing it? --BM 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well spotted, BM, a consensus decision would save a lot of breath. However the present non-system has been defended because 'it's impossible to get a consensus'. Kappa 15:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would certainly favour a reasonable consensus - by which I can't see how we can say we'll only put in notable academics, industrialists, geographical features, etc. when we'll allow anything mentioned in passing in a work of fiction in. That would certainly boost those who wish to mock Wikipedia in the press. But given the size of the user base, anything decided with less than 100 people voting would be utterly silly, so it would have to be a well populised vote. Average Earthman 17:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Dan, if you read through this page for a few days, you will see that "non-notability" is the main reason that articles are deleted, along with vanity and advertising. "Non-notability" is the main way in which articles are not "encyclopedic", which is specifically mentioned in the deletion policy. The "-cruft" suffix denotes various types of trivia and non-notability, "fancruft" being one of the most common. The article under discussion is "fan-cruft", meaning non-notable trivia. It is beginning to seem to me that what gets deleted as "fancruft" depends on who is voting on VfD on any particular day, and that, indeed, there are numerous people who think all fancruft should be included. Shouldn't there be a consensus on this, rather than every VfD vote rehashing it? --BM 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, Harrycruft. —tregoweth 16:25, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is trivia for the obsessives - while a huge number of people read the Harry Potter books and watch the films, the vast majority realise it is an entertainment, not something to fill in info about every last little bit of the film. Ideally, they'd be an alternate Wiki for all this stuff, that people can fill with every last minutae of Harry Potter, Pokemon, or whatever, and leave Wikipedia to be a proper encyclopedia which merely covers the important facts. So JK Rowling, of course, Harry Potter, yes. Bubotuber, no. Average Earthman 17:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- *yawn*. Please read the deletion policy. Unwarranted listing; keep, obviously. James F. (talk) 17:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into Creatures from Harry Potter even if such an article does not yet exist, to dissuade editors from making separate articles for each. --fvw* 18:36, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
- Keep. "Fancruft" is not a valid reason for listing an article for deletion. Bryan 19:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Much too trivial. --LeeHunter 23:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into Creatures from Harry Potter as per User:fvw above - Amgine 01:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Ideally merge somewhere. If that doesn't happen for a while, keep. I always have confidence that reasonable content will eventually be sorted out and properly merged, even if at the outset it's split up into a multitude of stubs. Everyking 22:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Why do people hate Harry Potter? Gkhan 02:26, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Why are you assuming that people hate Harry Potter? If you're assuming that people could not possibly vote for deletion or merging of anything Harry Potter-related unless they hated Harry Potter, I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. I've voted for merges and deletes on articles for things that I loved, like Animaniacs and Futurama. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Elf-friend 11:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into Plants of Harry Potter or something of the sort. DO NOT DELETE. Meelar (talk) 17:17, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC
- Marginal keep. GRider\talk 18:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into something suitable and redirect. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 21:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into appropriate article (for example: Plants in Harry Potter. No need to have stubby articles spread about the place. Article should mention Neville Longbottom owns one. (That is the plant we're talking about, right?
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.