Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magical creatures in Harry Potter

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. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magical creatures in Harry Potter

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

This is just a retelling of seemingly every detail within the Harry Potter universe. It is absurdly long and I don't see how it could be edited into a good article. The articles on Harry Potter and the individual books cover the important plot points. This is just excessive and is better served by a Harry Potter dedicated wiki (harrypotter.wikia.com/). It is a fan article and there is no reason for it to be here, I'm sorry. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Fictional universe of Harry Potter. Artw (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources demonstrated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Harry Potter universe is the subject of multiple books and articles (not all of which are written or authorised by Rowling). There's entire volumes like Harry Potter: The Creature Vault: The Creatures and Plants of the Harry Potter Films[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many sources, coverage is significant - DrPoglum (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination here and for the related AfD's is an odd combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and arguing that editing the article is somehow too hard. The edit history easily disproves the latter and the former is not a reason for nominating. In the absence of a good nomination, the article should be kept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 17 June 2017 (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.