Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogwarts Express
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was I take it all back - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hogwarts Express
Delete as WP:CRUFT, that is to say, I "do[] not regard the material in question as encyclopedic, either because the entire topic is unknown outside fan circles, or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:FICT - a major element of the HP stories, and too long to be included in the main article. Tevildo 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I want to draw a sharp distinction between a major element in a story and a minor element in a major story. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable fictional train, featured prominently on the cover of the first book, article is sufficiently encyclopedic given the real world coverage, even though I actually don't give a damn about Harry Potter stuff. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - not quite kruft. Artw 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I rather dislike Harry Potter, and even I think this isn't cruft. The Hogwarts Express is a regular element in the commercials and trailers for the films. The fact that I recognized it before even reading the article indicates to me that this is nowhere near crufty. Captainktainer * Talk 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Captainktainer expresses my sentiments exactly. Cruft refers to subject matter stuff-all people will be interested in because it is too narrow, hence the usual Wikincarnation of the term, 'fancruft'. This is well known enough to be kept, so it is not correct to call it cruft. SM247My Talk 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Thankfully, WP:CRUFT is without much weight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the notability of the subject extends outside of the fanbase. Yanksox 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
