Deletion of James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

Comment: According to , web content is deemed notable if it is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent published works. If you take "multiple" to mean "more than one" (which http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiple Dictionary.com does) then the fact that it is the subject of the two newspaper articles (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Rowling-goes-Potty-over-US.3538712.jp The Scotsman and http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,22729888-10388,00.html?from=mostpop News.com.au) already linked in the article means that is notable. As for other sources, it also seems to have been covered by http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/12/162842.php BlogCritics and http://www.cbc.ca/spark/blog/2007/12/show_notes_december_12_2007.html CBC Radio. I think the article probably needs some cleanup but it is notable enough to exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: This one crosses the line for notability due to it being referenced in major media such as Publishers Weekly and The Scotsman (those two alone are enough). The article needs to make clear (and I think it presently does) that this is an unofficial work, and there is some content that could be seen as crossing the line into  territory with regards to Web guides and advertising. That, however, is an issue of content, not AFD. I agree that in 99% per cent of cases fanfic/unofficial works are inappropriate topics for articles, but if they do achieve notability through those third-party references everyone wants cited, then they're OK. A good example (in a different medium) is Star Trek: Phase II (fan series
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)