Deletion of Blood purity

Comment: per Auto et al.  is a core policy that cannot be overridden by consensus. This is completely a synthesis of primary sources, hence original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: What constitutes Original Research, taken from : '''unpublished facts''', arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any '''unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material'''(emphasis added) For information to be included here (on Wikipedia), it must be published elsewhere, in reliable sources, first. Just saying "''I read it all in the books''" doesn't cut it here. Wikipedia ''does'' have room for articles about novels but that doesn't mean we need an article about every idea in every novel. As this article doesn't seem to deal with the symbolism of the whole concept it isn't even an exceptionially good article about a novel. It appears to be mainly a collection of facts about the characters in the novels. Also, "fewer people write about the Bible"? I sure hope you are just referring to Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: quite a significant cncept within Harry Potter (part of a "larger topic"), article contains some sourcing and #PAPER|Wikipedia is not paper. It's an encyclopaedic topic - live with it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as pure fancruft |OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: important concept of notable series.  See , #PAPER
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS||WP:NOT)

Comment: per . We don't need the fancruft in the encyclopaedia. Parts that are cited can be transferred to another Harry Potter article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I quote : ''Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.''. This article collects and organises information from the published primary sources, the books. It is therefore 'strongly encouraged'. It does not create a synthesis, which means to use sources to make an argument. It reflects the concept as presented in the books, and as Rowling has commented upon it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Superbly well written article, great information... just all-around something I'd love to see here.  is the problem. I think perhaps that policy needs some revision so we don't lose great things like this, but perhaps this will be a great point for that (as opposed to ). It should also at least be moved to "Blood Purity (Harry Potter)" as Royal Family blood purity is a real world kind of topic that this name could apply to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POINT)