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 list was shown to be notable. (non-admin closure) Daniel kenneth ( talk) 22:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Potions in Harry Potter

Potions in Harry Potter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: A prior AfD from 2007 resulted in this page being deleted for failing WP:PLOT, WP:WAF and WP:FICT among other things. A year ago, it was recreated [1], apparently to fix broken links (which, honestly, isn't a valid reason to override an AfD).

Multiple discussions occurred regarding this article:

• June 2015: A discussion occurred here regarding the suitability of the article. Assurances were given that it would be improved. No changes that have happened to the article since have addressed the serious shortcomings of this article.
• November 2015: I started a discussion indicating I intended to AfD this article. No improvement to the article occurred. The only suggestion that came from it was to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter where it came from in the first place. I noted the problem wasn't the location, but the content itself.
• April 2016: I started a discussion at the Harry Potter task force, noting my intent to place this article for AfD. Nobody...nobody...responded.
• April 2016: I contacted every person who was active on the project who had ever edited the article ( example), a total of 17 people, including the person who had recreated this article. What few responses I got all indicated they felt the article should be deleted.

At no time in any of these discussions has anyone done anything to address the failings of this article. Since my last notice, two months ago, of intent to AfD this article the only changes that have occurred are cosmetic/copy editing ( see changes).

The simple reality is there is no out-of-universe notability regarding potions in the Harry Potter universe. As is, the only reference we have of any kind supports the Potions section at Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions. While the text of this article is not identical to what was deleted back in 2007, and thus the article could not be speedy deleted under WP:G4, it's a near case. All the reasons for deletion voiced in the first AfD still apply nine years later. Nine years later and still nobody will lift a finger to rewrite it.

Lastly, merging is not an option. We already have a potions section at Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions. The content here is the problem; it is nothing more than WP:FANCRUFT, and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Merging it just moves the problem elsewhere. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 20:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge somewhere, even if it's only brief one-sentence synopses of each potion. I created the current version of the article because I thought it was disgusting that we had so many broken links and redirects in such a popular topic area. I believe Wikipedia should have at least basic descriptions of these potions ... why have descriptions of every other element in the Harry Potter universe except them? Also, the Magic in Harry Potter#Potions section is about the subject at Hogwarts, not the potions themselves ... otherwise I would agree that putting relevant content there would be a good idea. Graham 87 16:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keeping isn't an option. The article as is fails everything Wikipedia is supposed to be. If there were some hope to improve it, I could see that. But such hope is vacuous; in nine years, nothing has happened to change their notability. As to keeping mentions of individual potions; why? From WP:PLOT: "Summary-only descriptions of works". Exhaustive lists of every potion in the universe is hardly a "summary". As to other elements of the universe containing such; that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and carries no water. I've no problem with expanding Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions with sourced commentary. But including a list isn't what we're about. That's appropriate for a Wikia, but not here. Lastly, keeping the article to prevent broken links is wrong. Fix the broken links. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Also Graham, I'd like to note that you were involved in June 2015 discussion, and knew of the article's serious shortcomings from a year ago. You were involved in the November 2015 discussion, and were aware this was going to be placed for AfD and were reminded of the serious shortcomings. You were informed in April 2016 this would be placed for AfD in two months. Not that anyone is required to do anything on Wikipedia...but in a year's time, despite multiple reminders, you've done nothing to address the serious shortcomings of this article. Yet, you want it kept? None of your above keep vote addresses the serious failings this article has and why it should be kept despite those serious failings, nor does your keep vote try to make any case that it in fact doesn't fail those things. Come on. Give us _something_ to chew on? Anything? Bueller? :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• The only way to fix the links was to give them something to point to again, which I did. Even I wouldn't mind if the "Potions of Harry Potter" article was redirected somewhere with actual content about, well, potions in Harry Potter, contrary to the situation that existed between the time of this edit on 3 December 2012 by Chaheel Riens and my edit on 4 June 2015. So if someone wanted to know what Felix Felicis was, as I did, they could easily get a basic description of it while following links on Wikipedia rather than being led on a wild goose chase as I (and anyone else who had viewed the article in the previous two and a half years) would have been. Note that the books are fine sources for basic descriptions in this case. Graham 87 18:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Not true. You can fix the links by removing them. You don't have bring an AfD'd article back to life to 'fix' it. That doesn't fix it. You just create a problem that was previously taken care of. So your 'fix' might have solved a problem for you, but re-created a problem the community already agreed to remove. As to MOS:BOOKPLOT; There's nothing wrong with using primary sources in limited circumstances. But, for an exhaustive list? Again, Wikia is appropriate for this, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if you think going after Felix Felicis is a wild goose chase, then have it link to Magic in Harry Potter#Potions. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. User:Hammersoft and User:Graham87 are both right - and both wrong. The article in its present form originated, not from the article deleted in 2007 but from a Potions section in Magical objects in Harry Potter, present there from 2009 or before and removed from it for a definitional reason with which I would disagree ("potions are not magical objects") in 2012. This left links from other articles relating to a number of potions which had formerly been listed in the section now redirecting to an article which did not mention potions at all - a definitely undesirable situation, since it means that the links concerned were effectively useless for any reader using them. I fully sympathise with User:Graham87's reasons last year for attempting to remedy this by resurrecting the previous section as a free-standing article, but he should have realised that the lack of any explicit references, other than primary ones to the novels (and even those only to novels as a whole rather than specific pages or, at least, chapters), would automatically make it questionable on grounds of notability.

Lists like this one (and, indeed, Magical objects in Harry Potter) are a useful way to group together short explanations of recurrent plot elements which individually have little or no direct notability, but which in turn help to explain plot turns, or other aspects of the work in which they appear, which are notable. However, while this usefulness can mean that we tend not to insist on the notability of each of the listed elements taken separately, we still expect at least some significant secondary sourcing through the list taken as a whole (or, indeed, substantial subsections of it). I therefore also sympathise with User:Hammersoft's attempts to insist on it and, indeed, waiting without success for about a year for such sourcing before moving to get the article deleted. However, User:Hammersoft's alternatives for the inward links should this article be deleted all have problems: User:Graham87 still has a good point about the need for links to go to a relevant article, which User:Hammersoft's suggestion of Magic in Harry Potter#Potions basically isn't (it is about Potions as a subject at Hogwarts, not individual potions); and simply removing the links from the linking articles usually leaves terms like Felix Felicis either totally unexplained or with less explanation than the context needs. Adding an explanation of the delinked term or removing it altogether can in turn cause problems as (particularly if what matters are the effects of the potion rather than the potion itself) it can, respectively, either overemphasise or remove one part of a larger and more notable explanation.

Ideally, the answer is probably some kind of merger, most likely as a revised and better-sourced reinstatement of a Magical objects in Harry Potter#Potions section - but this probably still requires some secondary sourcing, though not as much as for a standalone article. Contrary to User:Hammersoft's assertions, there are available secondary sources about potions in the Harry Potter universe - for instance, this academic paper - to be found on a GBooks search (better done as Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL than with the full article title), though it may be quite a lengthy job to sift sufficient reliable ones from among the purely fannish ones. PWilkinson ( talk) 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• IF there are reasonable secondary sources, then add them. The assertion this hasn't happened in a year isn't accurate. We've been waiting nine years for reliable secondary sources, and nobody has come forward with anything. I never asserted this content is the same as 2007. I did assert it suffers from the same problems as 2007. Merging flat isn't an option with this content. As I've maintained all along, it doesn't matter where the content goes. The content is the problem, not WHERE it is. If someone wants to include a table with one line per potion in the main article with a very short description saying what the potion is supposed to do, fine. Beyond that, it's all fancruft and regurgitation of plot details. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• @ PWilkinson: You hit the nail on the head here. If I could do the reinstatement of the potions again, I would've moved them to somewhere like Fictional universe of Harry Potter rather than creating the article again. Graham 87 05:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. major plot element in major fiction. The individualones canbe sourced perfectly well from the books themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• That it's a "major plot element" is belied by the lack of secondary sources. It's not up to us to decide if it's major or not, but the secondary sources. The secondary sources have been absent for 9 years, both in this article and in the article from which this content was pulled, and in the prior iteration of this article. As to using primary sources, that's a non-starter. Primary sources should be used sparingly, not as the only basis for an article. I've been fighting for a year now to get somebody...anybody...to step forward to turn this into an encyclopedia article. Nobody has been willing to lift a finger to do so. For eight years prior to that, nobody lifted a finger to fix it either. The only thing that has happened is to add more fancruft. At what point do we decide it's not going to happen? Would you accept what I suggested above, that of having a table at Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions with a single line for each, and a bare description of what each is supposed to do? If not, why not? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect as a compromise as there's nothing at all for any future improvements but it's relevant enough to at least keep, not as its own article however. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Barring objections, I'm going to turn this into a redirect to Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions, and do as I suggested above; include a table with one line per potion in the main article with a very short description saying what the potion is supposed to do. @ Graham87: @ PWilkinson: @ DGG: @ SwisterTwister:, agreed? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  Certainly. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  Purely from the standpoint of what aspects of potions are being discussed, I feel that Magical objects in Harry Potter might be a better article for the redirect and table. However, I don't feel like insisting on this point. PWilkinson ( talk) 23:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  As said above repeatedly, the section about potions in Magic in Harry Potter is about the Potions class at Hogwarts, not the potions themselves. I think it would be a much better idea to create a section for potions *themselves* at Fictional universe of Harry Potter and put the table there. Graham 87 08:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  Well, where I think is a bit less important than what. I could see an argument for placing the table as a subsection of Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Using_magic. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  It'd work there, I guess, but then there could be two sections with the same title which isn't a good thing, especially for redirects. I think it'd fit better in the "Fictional universe ..." page because there are already foods, drinks, etc. there. Graham 87 15:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  If placed in the "Magic in Harry Potter article", I think that, to avoid confusion, we should create a new section for "Potion brewing" as a magical ability, to write a sourced paragraph for this kind of magic, and place the table with the potions next. Thoughts? -- LoЯd ۞pεth 16:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I don't think the section titles being the same is an obstacle. I'm sure we can create unique names for each. For example, the existing section could be labeled as "Potions (class)" or "Potions (subject)" or some such. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Both the above suggestions would work, too. Graham 87 09:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: the subject fails to meet notability outside the series. It is entirely description of fictional elements. If merging is considered as an option, it should be rewritten: instead of a list of cruft, it should be about "Potion brewing" or some similar title, discussing the ability of the characters to produce potions. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

  The subject passes the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Notability, which notes:

  All fictional topics must meet the notability guidelines to warrant articles specifically about them. As mentioned earlier, the rule of thumb is that if the topic is sufficiently notable, secondary sources will be available and will ideally be included on article creation.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "potions in Harry Potter" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources
  1. Stouffer, Tere (2007). The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter. New York: Penguin Group. pp. 150–161. ISBN  1440636613. Retrieved 2016-06-18.

     The book notes on page 150:

     Common Draughts, Potions, and Antidotes

     The final section of this chapter lists the common potions you'll find in the wizarding world, most of which clean something, cure some ailment, or cause wizards to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background.

     Here is a sample entry on page 152:

     Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction

     To be "oblivious" is to be unaware, and "unction" refers to an oil or salve, usually a soothing or comforting one, used for religious or medicinal purposes. ("Unction" also refers to rubbing into or sprinkling oil onto the body; thus, Extreme Unction is the term used by the Catholic Church for the Anointing of the Sick, also called Last Rites.) Because we don't know the ingredients for this potion, nor do we know anything about Dr. Ubbly, we can only assume that it is a salve of some sort that's intended to make people oblivious to the world around them (and could, therefore, have a strong connection to—or even be the same potion as—a Confusing Concotion) or forget something uncomfortable or terrifying they've seen.

     One note, however: doctors don't exist in the wizarding world, so this potion may have originated in the Muggle world. "Healer Ubbly" would be more likely, if this were, indeed, a uniquely wizard potion. Ubbly, on the other hand, evokes a strong sense of a bubbly cauldron (ubbly-bubbly).

     Here is a second sample entry on page 152 and page 153:

     Confusing and Befuddlement Draught (also Confusing Concoction)

     A Confusing and Befuddlement Draught is meant to befuddle and, therefore, distract the user. This potion is likely used on Muggles who have seen possible wizard activities, but think of how a rather evil wizard could find it useful in other situations: pouring a smidgeon into his dad's nightcap just before he checks the clock to see how late he got home; sharing a little with a police officer as he or she is writing him a ticket or to a bank teller or store clerk who is counting out his change; slipping a little to a witness in a court case. A good wizard could easily go bad with powers such as these.

     Confusing potions aren't unique to the wizarding world. George Eliot wrote about a "confusing potion" in her 1876 novel, Daniel Deronda (her last). Long before that, Sophocles wrote that Athena tricked Ajax into confusing sheep with men—which is highly inconvenient during war-time! Key ingredients include lovage (historically used as a medicinal tea), scurvy-grass (once a treatment for scurvy or vitamin C deficiency), and sneezewort (a form of yarrow to which many people are allergic). See Chapter 10 for more on these ingredients, all of which you can grow in your backyard.

  2. Boyle, Fionna (2004). A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring the Harry Potter Universe. Toronto: ECW Press. pp. 192–195. ISBN  155022655X. Retrieved 2016-06-18.

     The book notes on pages 192–193:

     Potions

     Through a combination of theoretical and practical work, students learn about the preparation and effects of magical potions and substances. They also study poisons and antidotes, and learn about the attributes of different potion ingredients, from everday to the exotic. ...

     ...

     * Ageing Potion: Makes the drinker a little or a lot older, depending on how much is drunk.

     * Babbling Beverage: Presumably makes the drinker speak nonsense.

     * Baruffio's Brain Elixir: Presumably boosts brain power. It is sold as a black-market concentration and study aid for OWL and NEWT students.

     * bezoar (pronounced "bez-war"): Stone found in a goat's stomach that will save a person from most poisons.

     * Boil-curing potion: Contains crushed snake fangs, dried nettles, stewed horned slugs, and porcupine quills.

     * Confusing Concoction: Presumably befuddles the drinker.

     * Deflating Draught: It reduces objects that have been inflated back to their original size.

     * Draught of Living Death: Very powerful sleeping potion containing powdered root of asphodel and infusion of wormwood.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 05:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".

  This "information external to the work" requirement is clearly met by the first source, which says, "Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background."

  Cunard ( talk) 05:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Cunard has thoroughly refuted the "where are the sources?!?" arguments above, to the extent that I would expect every delete !voter above to either revise or reaffirm their statements before being counted by the closing admin. Jclemens ( talk) 17:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• That's really an argument for keeping a table, with one line per potion. After this closes (regardless of close), I'll be doing that per the discussion the rest of us have had above. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – meets WP:LISTN. Per a review of available sources, including those provided by Cunard above, the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources. In addition to the sources posted above, I have added more below that discuss the topic as a group or set. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Again, that's really an argument for keeping a table, with one line per potion. After this closes (regardless of close), I'll be doing that per the discussion the rest of us have had above. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:07, 19 June 2016 (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.