Deletion of Spells in Harry Potter (2nd nomination)

Comment: I don't see much in the previous AFD in favour of keeping that isn't , , or "it's a good article". Wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping ground for Harry Potter fancruft, that's what http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page the Harry Potter Wiki is for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:USEFUL)

Comment: The information is very interesting, well-compiled and organized, is fairly detailed, and is altogether rather interesting. That being said, it still has no place on Wikipedia. Again, this article deals with specific, in-universe information that would not conceivably be of interest to anyone who was not familiar with the Harry Potter universe. What's more, the article is almost entirely a directory of individual subjects that make no assertion of notability. The only original information is the etymologies, and those alone do not justify the list's existence, as #INFO|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think it's pretty intersting, and it seems like a lot of work has gone into it, but I can't see any logical justification for inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as in the previous AFD, all the arguments in favour of keeping seem to be , , "it's encyclopedic" when it clearly isn't, or in one case that we should use our "common sense" and let it stay. If common sense were applied to this AFD, the only outcome would be this collection of fictional trivia being deleted from this ''encyclopedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:USEFUL)

Comment: Wow, have any of you people voting delete read the last AfD? Evidently not, so I'm going to copy and paste my last response here: what about ? On another note, yes, Wikipedia articles ought to have third-party sources, but have you tried Wikipedia:Use common sense|using common sense? Articles need third-party sources when, for example, they need proof that they even exist (like the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations|moon landing hoax). However, I think that in this particular sense there are some pretty reputable sources, like, oh, I don't know...the books that they appeared in, maybe? What about books that have been previously mentioned, ''The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter'' by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or ''Magical Worlds of Harry Potter'' by David Colbert? I remember people complaining about the etymology sections about , but seriously, some of the spells are just plain made up! Only the author knows how she made them, and to get in a twist about that is straight up anal. Get your heads out of your asses, guys, and use your energy to argue about articles that actually cause problems
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:OR)