Deletion of Second Wizarding War

Comment: Rename to fall in line with a consensus on a proper title.  If this was never referred to as the Second Wizarding War in the books, then I do agree it ought to be renamed.  However, the article itself must be preserved (note: I support it remaining as one entity, not a shoddy merger in with a generic Potter conflicts article)  The article itself is of good stock and overall good quality with minor issues which would merely require a rewrite.  We already have a good example of a fictional war's representation on Wikipedia, reference War of the Ring which in itself is not greatly notable, and is an article moderately detailed, written based upon the text of the story and devoid of secondary sources (otherwise known as Original Research if this page's interpreters of original research be followed).  This being the case, and applying the deletion rationales presented on this page, then the War of the Ring page must be immediately and without delay deleted out of concern for even enforcement of no original research, notability, and plot summary reasons.  I see no clamor over the War of the Ring article's grievous infractions of these same principles.  As it pertains to no original research codes, it is asinine to wait for a published secondary source merely to corroborate a summary any reader of the pertinent portion of the Potter series can verify.  Notability should not be at issue in this case as this plot line has transferred itself into a multi-billion dollar enterprise and is now a part of a series of films.  If this needs to be rewritten to ensure it abides by #PLOT|expanded plot summary so that it offers, ''"detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot"'' then do so.  This is eminently possible, if not easy to achieve
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:FICT|Excessive #PLOT|plot summary under a |fanmade name
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOR)

Comment: per #INFO as an extended plot summary. This duplicates information already existing in other articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The article is completely in-universe and provides no indication that the subject has been covered by |reliable third-party publications
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as |original research and a violation of #PLOT and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOT||WP:WAF)

Comment: It is against policy to make up stuff - see . There is too much fancruft with no basis in the published novels around at the moment
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)