This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below
. 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 ambiguous.
I count 22 clear "delete" votes to 22 "keep" votes (with about 5 of those explicitly "keep as merge/redirect"). A number of anonymous or very new users were discounted (with votes on both sides of the debate). Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now.
Reviewing the comments in detail, I find the main objection to be the level of detail. Many of the "keep" votes, all of the "merge" votes and quite a few of the "delete" votes expressed support for a merger of this article back into the parent. Since merge/redirect is a reversible decision, I am going to
be bold and exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor to redirect this article to
Harry Potter fandom which already has what appears to be a very good overview of this topic. Any further discussion on the appropriateness of that redirect should be made on the respective article Talk pages.
Rossami (talk) 06:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While I'm not going to trouble with whether or not
Harry Potter fandom should have an article, that one topic of that should be drawn out to such a gargantuan essay, with no apparent sources other than message board postings (and what other sources could there be?), is something that just begs for deletion. Delete as nonencyclopedic, essay, personal research, and for good measure, wikipedia is not a travel guide.
Postdlf 08:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) (ok, that last one didn't apply)
:Is there an existing record for Most Unofficial Wikipedia Policies Violated in One Article? --
AceMyth 16:33, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Let me just note that all the information on the
Shipping in the Harry Potter fandom was moved from the
Harry Potter fandom page. I gave it its own article as the section was taking up too much space. [comment by 67.171.180.209]
- And let me just note that I'm voting to delete this article without remerging it, so thanks for aiding the process by separating this content out.
Postdlf 09:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Delete. Not exactly encyclopedic. But perhaps it does no harm. --
ScottMorrison 08:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Fancruft in a new, pathological dimension: truly mindboggling. View with shock and awe, then delete. --
Hoary 11:45, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
- Dude, I'm the
main contributor to that article and now that you put it like that, I see that somehow an inconspicuous informative description of an odd phenomenon on
Harry Potter fandom has turned into a bloated monster of information, and perhaps indeed not all of it is necessary. I vote keep, solely due to the fact that I'm well aware that any vote that is not "keep" helps little in the effort to prevent it being deleted altogether. I hope it ends up condensed and simply merged back where it belongs. Also, no need for condescending boggling and that horrid word "fancruft". Where has the wikilove gone? --
AceMyth 12:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The article could be trimmed here and there, but I agree: it's well written. Well done. The subject strikes me as staggeringly unnoteworthy, that's all. --
Hoary 08:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a rather lively discussion at
Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article#Size about splitting out articles into subarticles when the main article becomes too long. This article is a perfect example of when a subarticle should be created to cover a more specific topic.
slambo 15:11, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — Not exactly my cup of tea, but I see no strongly-compelling reason to delete it. —
RJH 16:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ah, the famous Wikipedia obsession with pop culture. This is all, of course, completely bloody irrelevent. The plot is what Rowling says it is, and all the wild speculation in the world is just that. As for splitting it off because the original article was too long - just because someone can wildly expound at great length on a topic does not mean that that topic is of any worth as an encyclopedia article - often it just means they should get to the point. The section in the Harry Potter fandom article is sufficient and to the point, and is all that is needed on this subject. Otherwise - well, you have your own websites for this subject, don't you.
Average Earthman 17:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup/condense as necessary. No reason wikipedia shouldn't document existing wild speculation.
Kappa 17:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
Yes, there is. --
InShaneee 15:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Harry Potter fandom has certainly become notable, and if some of the more devoted Potter fans think this is a valid subject, I'd leave it be. --
Infrogmation 18:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think you deserve to know the precise reason for the move. It wasn't just space; almost all contributions were focused on this section, which is how it got to be so long and out of proportion with the other section. Therefore, I thought it might be good to split it off and I suggested the idea on the talk page a long time ago, but I got no worthwhile response.
- Unsigned comment by user
67.171.180.209. --
InShaneee 15:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Can anyone confirm that this "shipping" thing is a phenomenon outside of a small set of forumgoers? Unless a large portion of the Harry Potter fanbase is familiar with this kind of stuff (I, for one, am not), I don't see why it should be kept. Also, consider a title change; referring to romantic relationship speculation in popular fiction as
shipping is just bizarre.
- response to comment. Well, J.K. Rowling is familiar with it, has commented on it and has referred to it as "shipping". Clearly she didn't have to find a small, obscure set of forumgoers to run across the phenomenon. It's unquestionably the most prominent trend in HP fandom- if it's deleted on the grounds on non-notability, then
Harry Potter fandom should get the axe as well. It seems that HP shipping gets the flack here simply because of its inherent "WTF" factor. --
AceMyth 21:21, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, I vote to liberally condense and Merge back into
Harry Potter fandom. That article isn't
really that long; it's the long list of external links that contributes most to its unneeded length. (WTF factor, indeed.)
android↔
talk 21:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Response to Comment. If it had just been a small set of forumgoers, then this thing wouldn't have gotten to be so long, now would it? —
Unsigned comment by 67.171.180.209.
- That doesn't make any sense. A small set of people could have
easily written an article of this length.
In fact, there's only one IP address listed as a contributor to the article, aside from the VfD tag and a minor edit. D'oh, obviously, if this was moved, other contribution history is not recorded there...
android↔
talk 22:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Response to Comment: Is "shipping" a large part of fan culture? Sure you jest. It's huge. It's
freakin' huge. The answer is YES. That being said, just being huge and labyrinthine doesn't mean its complexities are encyclopedic, so this should not be taken as a 'keep' vote. --
Antaeus Feldspar 21:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A minor distinction, to be sure, but I wasn't speaking about fandom in general, but Harry Potter fandom in specific.
android↔
talk 21:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A brief summary in Harry Potter fandom is surely enough. --
G Rutter 20:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Harry Potter fandom and put in two sentences in that article.
RickK 21:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. If it's gotten this long and detailed, surely a decent number of people think it a worthwhile subject? Sure, maybe only a few people have contributed to it
since it's been moved, but it started out as a subsection of the
Harry Potter fandom article and this particular section has undergone many changes, even in just the last few days I've been watching it. Furthermore, J. K. Rowling herself has said that shipping will become more of a theme in future books. I think there are sufficient reasons to keep this page as its own page and not merge back into the Harry Potter fandom article.
Hermione1980 22:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. For both the size of the information and the fact that shipping IS most of the fanculture (but by no means all of it, hence a separate article). It's written rather well as well, better than some more serious topics, I'm a bit dismayed to see.
humblefool® 22:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Original research and lots of it. --
InShaneee 22:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Voters should also be made aware that
Shipping (fandom) exists, which deals generally with the phenomenon of which this article is just one permutation—all popular books, movies, and television series have these kind of fan arguments. No reason to treat all of these discussions in and of themselves as noteworthy or to treat the Harry Potter one as uniquely notable. The phenomenon is notable. Its individual manifestations fail to be.
Postdlf 23:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I may well be wrong here, but doesn't this stuff seem a bit suited to
Wikibooks? From what I gather, this is the kind of stuff many Wikibooks feature: a long analysis of specific literary titles. Anyone interested in doing a Harry Potter study guide, with this content as a starting point? It will no doubt be useful to the hundreds of high school students who will be studying and writing essays on Harry Potter or the Harry Potter films.
:Response to CommentThis has more to do with the views of Internet fans than anything else.
- Delete voluminous fancruft.
Fire Star 00:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup.
Megan1967 03:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, delete, delete. If the word "fancruft" had not already been coined, it would have to be invented to describe this article. --
PHenry 07:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Tough one, since fandom is inherently less encyclopedic than the original books. However this is probably one of the most noted topics in HP fanfiction, and a lot of good work has gone in to making this article.
Sjakkalle 08:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for now It is one of the more notable and widespread shipping phenomenons, so this article will make sense to more people than articles on ships of other fandom worlds will. It may even serve as an example of the shipping culture. For these reasons, I find it useful. However, once the final book is published, will we really want to keep an archive of debate over questions which will have been resolved? I think the article should be reconsidered for deletion after the last book has been published.
Sinistro 08:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Condense and merge. Above and beyond fabcruft. -
R. fiend 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. First you box it, then you ship it, then delete.
Jonathunder 05:37, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
- Yikes, delete
Grue 07:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Tough one. If it were just about fanfic, I would have wanted it deleted post haste. But this is genuine analysis of a famous series. I don't think looking for deeper meanings to character development in a book is necessarily original research either, nor does 'not a crystal ball' apply since this doesn't speculate much about future books, but rather tries to find meaning in the existing ones. So I can't really find a solid argument for deleting it. And I found it interesting. So keep. Oh, but it should certainly be renamed since 'shipping' means 'naval transport' to most people unfamiliar with fanfic.
Radiant_
- 12:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- The name of the article was simply taken from the original section at
Harry Potter fandom, which 1. provided context and 2. also contained an introduction (which the person who moved it decided to leave back there, for some reason). I'm sure the person who moved it had good intentions but with current Wikipedia policy, taking one sub-aspect of anything out of its original article's context and giving it its own page is at best useless and results in re-merging, and at worst is signing its death-warrant. --
AceMyth 17:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
::The introduction is on both pages. (unsigned comment by user
67.171.180.209. --
InShaneee 15:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --
Spinboy 05:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. I may not be interested in it, but NPOV tells me other people just might be.
The JPS 20:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
ANNIHILATE.
Neutralitytalk 03:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- My magic wand goes Delete. —
tregoweth 04:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, trimming any original research if applicable. To the extent that it's a widespread phenomenon, it's noteworthy enough to be encyclopedic for Wikipedia's purposes, deservedly or not. Wiki is not paper. If enough people care about it, let them have their page about it. And if "shipping" is the term widely in use, well then so be it... it's not the first case of ambiguity that Wikipedia has had to deal with. --
Curps 04:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. First, the shipping problem is very common among the readers of
Harry Potter, which is growing in large amount everyday. As a very common series worldwide I believe that the interpreting of the
Harry Potter series is going to have a worldwide, though might not be very significant, effect on a population, not only a few individuals. Secondly, to many of these readers, choosing their ship is not a random act but is also a belief they uphold, based on and strengthened by continuous changing of reasons, I believe that
Wikipedia should give an account of the development of these ideas over time, which may help us to understand our own minds. (e.g. moral values) The shipping problem is also a very entry point and an alternative way for us to understand characters in the book better. If the major characters of the Harry Potter series have an entry in
Wikipedia too, I see no reason why this page, which discussed the relationships (if any) between these characters in such a detailed way, should be deleted. I must admit that I consider myself to be a heavy reader of the
Harry Potter series, and I won't mind if you believe my reasonings are heavily biased, but please tell me what you think too! --
Computor 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (GMT +0800)
- User's first edit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Computor]
Postdlf 00:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep, I suppose. Nicely written, but.. erm, a bit long for an article about "love"-speculation by fans of fiction. 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I think the only thing the length and detail of this article signifies is the depth of
systemic bias on some quarters of the wiki.
Slac speak up! 00:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The worst example of fancruft I have ever encountered. Wikipedia is not a fan discussion site. Please delete. --
Bucephalus 11:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Delete as above.
Martg76 14:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- delete I have read the books, and seen the movies (and liked both). I read this article in question. It is not an article about popular literature (Rowlings books). It is an article about a discussion held amoung fans of the literature. Furthermore, the way it is written, there is not enough context for a reasonably intelligent outsider to even understand the article. (I pretend to be intelligent, and I still don't exactly know what
shipping means in this context.
Morris 16:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Way too detailed fanstuff. --
Conti|
✉ 15:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, followed by destruction by irradiation, fire and corrosives. I've seen some bad articles, but this takes the cake. --
Karada 16:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. If this article gets deleted, would it be possible to put an abridged version as someone's sub-user page? I really do think the article is informative, as NPOV as you can get with this subject, and deserving of staying, but I've already voted, so I have no more say.
Hermione1980 20:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - The information presented in this article has a very definite bias towards certain "'ships" that seems self-serving, as well as occasionally citing works that do not really pass muster as being particularly well-known or authoritative where their subject is concerned.
Moxy 08:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep—need for NPOV rebalance and editing aside, the topic is a fascinating (or at least, amusing) and significant phenomenon in a significant fandom. As far as personal research goes, it's no more so than any other self-descriptive community article on Wikipedia, and let's face it, WP's a magnet for such communities. --
Perey 09:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - the Harry Potter fandom is one of the largest and most noted ones on the Web; it would be shame not to have an entry on it. Plus, it basically IS the fandom - without shipping, you have no fandom.
-
Note: Unsigned comment by User:68.52.205.80. Postdlf 04:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and condense. "Shipping" is the biggest part of HP fandom, and HP fandom is damn huge. That said, this article focuses too much on the relationships and not enough on the phenomenon. --
Carnildo 23:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I say remerge in a highly condensed form, keeping the introductory paragraphs and summarizing the arguments for/against each ship in a couple of sentences. Anyone looking for further discussion can follow links to fan sites.
neatnate 06:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --
Sabel4 23:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: that vote was not made by "
Sabel4", who doesn't exist or anyway [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Sabel4 has a grand total of zero contributions], but instead was made at 00:25, 2005 Apr 13 by
216.96.122.135. --
Hoary 03:00, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
- Delete, speculation about fictional characters in not encyclopedic. --
nixie 04:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This article serves no real purpose.---
Gaterion 16:57 Apr 13
- Comment: Just trying to sponge some of the acid out of a few comments here.
Fancruft—no, not essentially. Fancruft is detailed information on a topic only of interest to hardcore fans. This article is
about the fans, not about Harry Potter minutiae. There may be some fancruft in there on the background of the 'ships', but that's no reason to delete the whole article.
Original research—hardly. I respect the intent of the 'no original research' guideline, but I dislike seeing it used to oppose articles written on valid personal experience—articles to which rules regarding
academic research are irrelevant.
Unencyclopaedic—this article is about a cultural phenomenon, so it's encyclopaedic in origin; it's huge in scope and range, so it's encyclopaedic in noteworthiness; and it's not 'speculation about fictional characters', as was claimed. (It's
about such speculation, it doesn't essentially consist of it; see
fancruft.) If after cleanup and decrufting there's only a few lines left (doubtful),
then by all means merge. --
Perey 01:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
"This has driven supporters of this pairing to look for reasons why it could happen on other fronts, resulting in many theories suffering from the same ad-hoc symptoms characteristic of the Harry/Hermione theories they have been so quick to label as irrational, but also in several meaningful finds—mainly in the areas of literary pattern analysis, relatively simple foreshadowing, and Rowling's teasing comments when asked about Harry and Ginny." How inane can you get?
silsor 21:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep -- I found it very informative, and think it is an asset to the Harry Potter sections of Wikipedia --
Drak2 16:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
Most shippers will even admit to avoiding the debates, as they consider them childish, pointless, and generally wanky.—What a perfectly apt description of this article. Keep as an excellent example of the sort of thing that's driving so much of Wikipedia's growth. —
Charles P. (Mirv) 16:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:
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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. 
