From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. I was going to relist this, as it hasn't been yet, but (a) it's been open 13 days already, (b) it's pretty clear that there's absolutely no consensus on what to do, and (c) unlike a number of these types of discussions, reasonable points have been made on all sides. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Potions in Harry Potter

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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)

There are many notable elements of the Harry Potter verse. But I have doubts that the list of fictional potions used in it is one of them. I don't see any evidence this topics passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT with elemen ts of OR. There were in the past arguments that it may past LISTN but as recent deletions of many similar lists have demonstrated, we need a discussion that goes beyond plot summaries, and so far nobody has shown anything on this topic that is not 100% a plot summary. Thoughts? A SOFTDELETE through REDIRECT to Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions might be a good compromise. PPS. Also, please consider this article has no reception, development, significance, and the sources used or cited in the past don't contain any suggestion such a section is possible. This is the very definition of non-encyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT, I am afraid. PS. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_spells_in_Harry_Potter is already gone, it's surprising the potions are holding on better than the spells... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Use the disappearing potion per nom. The Tolkiencruft hunt appears to have abated. Now on to break the Pottery. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Merge with Magic in Harry Potter My initial thought was delete per a deletion years ago of the list of spells in Harry Potter.[ [1]] I did not disagree with that deletion, so I went there to check the deletion reasons and found mention of Magic in Harry Potter as the justification for deletion (the list being a non notable plot summary fork). The magic page has a heading and paragraph on potions with a link to this page, making this a sub page of that one. So this page could be merged back into there, but the page is already large. Merge would be fine but could be done through merge process to allow editors there a chance to consider article size. So then the question is whether either of these should exist, and I notice there are sources in both articles that suggest notability, and potentially many more that can go in available with a google. Scholar and books also show up sources, and these were established in the AfD second nomination [2] which lists plenty of sources. The nom. does not attempt to discuss or refute these sources. The argument about adjusting policy on lists does not alter the fact that there are sources establishing notability. The subject is generally notable, although most sources do tend to use the cultural relevance of Harry Potter to make other wider points. Yet they do mention the potions and the magic. The subject is notable outside of the books. -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
My apologies, I spoke imprecisely. I did not think what you said about plot summaries applied to these refs:
My comments (with associated caveats) also applied to sources such as Dumbledore's advice to Law Deans and multiple other such articles where the cultural relevance of the Potterverse is used to make some other point. But then, what these do not do is that they do not treat the potions as a subject for a treatment on its own, although it turns out that food in HP does get such treatment! [3]. I can believe there is or could be a similar treatment of potions and still think this would thus be notable based on the existing sources and the distinct possibility there are such treatments. Yet I think you have a point. This page is not that treatment. Instead what we have here is largely - no entirely - plot summary. The notable aspects of the subject are not being treated here and this page is more akin to the list of spells (deleted) than the Magic in Harry Potter (retained). As such I think a merge would be highly desirable. There is probably a notable subject here, but this page is not it. Thus I am updating my recommendation to merge. -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge per my !vote last time, along with PWilkinson's comments in that nom. However, the deletion of the list of spells and the recent lot of redirect noms re the Tolkien universe for things that aren't mentioned in the redirect target weaken my position somewhat. Graham 87 09:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is just yet another "delete anything and everything to do with fiction". And " The Tolkiencruft hunt appears to have abated. Now on to break the Pottery. " is so WP:NOTHERE it should be TBANable. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. WP:ALLPLOT list that fails WP:LISTN, and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nothing indicates that the potions of Harry Potter are independently notable. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. It seems to be in poor shape, but I'd imagine that topic can establish itself. This list is a bunch of trivial plot information. I'd imagine the topic of potions in general warrants a paragraph or two in the main article, but it doesn't appear there is much worth merging at this point. TTN ( talk) 18:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There are six non-fiction works of literary criticism currently cited on the page. Yes, they talk about the plot function, because it's writing about fiction, and you need to discuss the items in the context of the narrative. Also, I agree with Andy Dingley that Clarityfiend's comment about "breaking all the Pottery" is inappropriate. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Next time, try to get the quote right. I said nothing about getting rid of all the Harry Potter articles. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Struck the "all", still inappropriate. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No, it isn't. It's clear he refers to deleting non-notable Harry Potter articles, in the context of an AfD, not deleting any articles related to Harry Potter. It shouldn't be inappropriate to say that fancruft that isn't, and will never be notable, should be kept. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter for being a mere plot summary. Having secondary sources that repeat facts that can be found in the plot, doesn't establish notability. However, it's possible that this is a WP:TNT case, in which case I prefer redirection over deletion. – sgeureka t• c 16:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sigh -- per Andy Dingley, this is part of the indiscriminate nomination of fiction by Piotrus. This is a fundamental core part of the scholarship of Harry Potter -- the Poly-juice potion is a very particular part of how the characters develop, and as ToughPigs points out you already have a significant coverage in several major sources in the article already. Sadads ( talk) 12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. The current article is entirely just plot summary. The sources on most of the individual examples here are also mostly plot summary. The actual information from the sources that do provide more can be easily integrated into the main article of magic in the franchise without needing to be split into a separate list of largely non-notable examples. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Magic in Harry Potter, which itself needs to be cleaned up to remove egregious fancruft. The article fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTN, as the sources here are not used to support anything besides in-universe information, and what little information they can provide would be much better suited over on the Magic page than on this collection of in-universe fancruft. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:44, 11 March 2020 (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) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (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) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (2nd nomination) participants: Hammersoft ( talk · contribs), Graham87 ( talk · contribs), PWilkinson ( talk · contribs), DGG ( talk · contribs), Lord Opeth ( talk · contribs), Jclemens ( talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs).

    Cunard ( talk) 04:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

    • Good idea to bring more people in. Pinging the mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spells in Harry Potter participants: User:El cid, el campeador, User:Artw, User:Jclemens, User:TTN, User:Reyk, User:Clarityfiend, User:Aoba47, User:Deathlibrarian and User:Carrite. (Not pinging myself :D). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I fail to see how this is in-depth coverage, few mentions in passing, most of it plot-related. If this is the best we have, I can only reaffirm my initial assessment. This is fancruft with not a smudge of real world notability. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • In the 2007 book The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter published by Penguin Group, potions are discussed on pages 150–161. The book notes (my bolding), "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."

        The "additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background" for each potion means this is not primarily "plot-related".

        Cunard ( talk) 06:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

        • Comment' - Cunard, I do not disagree with you (see my !vote above), but the page under discussion does have a problem that it currently only focuses on the plot elements and not the above notable aspects. Deletion is not for clean up, so I stand by my keep/merge !vote, but I would hope that the focus of this article would change in response to this AfD. If not then we will no doubt be seeing 4th nomination before too long. -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I do appreciate your good faithed contributions, Cunard, but if this is the best source, err. I mean, look at the examples posted. I can only assume you chose the best. "Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction" has no " mythological, Biblical, or literary backgroung", it's pure plot, unless you think that the remark about the word "ubbly" being a pun on bubbly is, errr, serious analysis? For "Confusing and Befuddlement Draught (also Confusing Concoction)", the analysis is saying that JKR did not invent the concept of the "potion of confusion" and the idea is not novel. Errr. Ok. But again, this is a hard cry from any analysis. We might as well say that the ideas of magical potions is not new, JKR was obviously inspired by previous works and such, so it is notable because... what exactly? The point is, nowehere in this book do I see any non-passing analysis of the concept of potions in Potterverse. It's all plot, plus a few passing remarks that in no way, shape or form meet what I consider to be signifnicant, in-depth analysis of the topic. Nobody is saying that potions in Potterverse, or even Potion XYZ from it, is blah blah literary theory blah blah for any consequential length. Those all, from top to bottom, appear to be mentions in passing, 99% plot-based. And consider that we don't even have an article on magical potion, as far as I can tell, this literary device has not been analyzed much, through maybe as a general trope it is notable. But so far article on Potion doesn't even have an in fiction section, and all we have is this big pile of fancrut that still does not show any connection to non-plot element, and I am sorry, your sources so far do not seem to suggest such connections exist. Please, prove me wrong and cite a paragraph from any of those works that engages not primarily with plot but with some real world elements, literary theory or such. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
          • Here is sample analysis where the author makes a connection between Wolfsbane Potion's inventor Damocles Belby and the Damocles who was a Greek royal attendant (my bolding of the key piece of analysis):

            Wolfsbane Potion

            Wolfsbane Potion may be the most valuable potion available to wizards: it allows a werewolf to lead a normal life by keeping him or her from transfiguring fully into a werewolf at each full moon—the body still transforms, but the mind doesn’t. The potion’s main ingredient is aconite (also called monkshood and wolfsbane), a member of the buttercup family that has long been used in small quantities for medicinal purposes—see Chapter 10.

            Rowling reveals that this potion was invented by "Damocles Belby." (Belby is a town in East Yorkshire, England.) An earlier Damocles was a Greek royal attendant who upset the ruler at that time, Dionysius, and was repaid by having a sword suspended over his head, held there by a single hair. Thus the term "the sword of Damocles" refers to an impending tragedy, which is exactly how wizards must feel about werewolves. With just one nip, a wizard's entire life is changed: there is no cure, and even though the illness can be kept under control, wizards are so afraid of werewolves that they do everything in their power to push them out of polite society.

            Here is more analysis connecting a Harry Potter potion to a real-world product:

            Skele-Gro

            Skele-Gro, a potion of unknown ingredients given to wizards who need to regrow one or more bones, is an apt wordplay on a Muggle product called HairGro, which, like its wizarding counterpart, encourages a part of the human body to grow at unusual rates. HairGro has the advantage of being a topical product that is applied to the scalp; Skele-Gro is a horrible steaming potion that burns as it goes down and causes the painful regrowing of bones to commence. It is used not to make wizards taller but to regrow limbs that have been severed or otherwise cursed to no longer have working bones in them.

            Cunard ( talk) 09:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
            • I fail to see anything resembling an in-depth analysis that's not plot related. Saying that JKR used the word Damocles and then retelling the story of real world related legend is not analysis. Neither is a speculation about connection to HairGro. It's like trying to argue that Star Wars is notable solely because it names implies connection to real world notable concept of stars and wars. C'mon. It's clear there are just no good sources here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Cunard has , as is frequently the case, has shown that this meets the technical requirements. Major plot elements in major fiction should have articles, especially when they are complex as this. The depth of the coverage of fictional elements depends upon the cultural importance of the fiction. It's true we deleted List of spells.., which is even more important, and that needs to be reconsidered . Considering the amount of effort we devote --and should devote, as one of the key functions of an encyclopedia-- to covering minor works for which relatively few people have heard but are nonetheless notable, it's peculiar that we don't give adequate coverage to the ones that actually are important. . The way it sometimes looks, we say that if something is notable by common sense, that's a reason to delete, even if it meets the WP:N. It's as if we made a agreement to have rules in order to interpret them in the stupidest way possible, just to show how clever we are at being paradoxical. (I used to try to do that a good deal, when I was 5 years old, but now we're almost 21. ) DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a GNG pass, per the excellent case laid out by Cunard. It's a pretty simple call based on that, really. Carrite ( talk) 09:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as unneeded wikia-type fan content which looks at every detail of a fictional world without analysis of its actual importance in the literature or without it. Passing GNG has never been [and will never be] the sole threshold to having a standalone article. I understand that a lot of people are passionate about Harry Potter and there is nothing wrong with that, but there are much better places to get Harry Potter information than WP. I fail to see how a list of potions is central to the literary importance of Harry Potter. There are plenty of HP pages which go into considerable depth and if a potion is important it can and probably should be noted elsewhere, but having a list which literally... lists.. every spell which is mentioned regardless of importance is just a fan activity. WP does not go into depth with tabloid-type content - even though there are always sufficient and in-depth sources. The same can be true here - coverage of something does not mean that we need an article which looks at every detail of the topic. Stats are another example - we avoid having articles which are just stats, even though there are considerable sources which discuss just stats. Instead, we discuss stats on the individual, team, or event pages. Same should be here - the spells can be mentioned but we do not need a list that is just spells. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter - Personally, I am big Potter fan, but this belongs in a specific Potterverse site, not Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 06:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter under a "Potion brewing" section (not even merge the whole list), since Wikipedia:Notability in the outside world (deep coverage by reliable secondary sources and impact in popular culture) has not been proven. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 14:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Cunard's sound analysis. Most of the delete !votes are simply arguments that an encyclopedia should not be encyclopedic or unsound efforts to evade the plain terms of the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 12:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as GNG is met, and anything else involving focusing on the real-world commentary is just cleanup. As far as some of the NOTHERE arguments above, I have found that multiple fiction AfD participants (that is, those inclined to not keep such elements) are entirely unconvinced by the presence of dead-tree, written, independently published secondary sources which cover fictional elements. I logged in today to review Confessions and Lamentations in light of the current Covid-19 pandemic, and of course it's been redirected without merge. I have no less than three dead-tree books which cover that episode, but not the time to put out fires started by those with plenty of time to redirect, but never a finger lifted to improve. I sincerely regret that taking care of actual living humans as a medical provider has curtailed my Wikipedia presence and participation, but it is what it is. Jclemens ( talk) 23:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. This page seems too specific and can be easily be included in here. It also seems like specific fan-content, like something you would find on Fandom. Textbook WP:FANCRUFT dibbydib Ping me! 💬/ ✏ 02:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I also think redirect to Magic in Harry Potter is a logical solution. GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there's enough of them that I don't see the value of a merge - will just result in something that needs splitting. Enough have usages in the common vernacular now that I don;t see sourcing as an issue. Artw ( talk) 03:13, 20 March 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Potions_in_Harry_Potter_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1220814480"