Deletion of Potions in Harry Potter (4th nomination)

Comment: I wouldn't object to deletion, but there appears to be a growing consensus to at least preserve the history, if not some of the content. This subject doesn't meet the  because it is largely unsourced or cited to primary/officially licensed sources. Similarly, those primary sources only cover this in-universe, so there is nothing to write here that isn't , which is something that Wikipedia articles are . I do see a decent redirect/merge target as a compromise
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:JUSTPLOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: not picky if this winds up a redirect or not.  In terms of Wikipedia practice,  I would ask which is better:  1) Copy-and-paste this into another article and replace it with a redirect,  2) redirect and make sure target had at least a summary of what is in the page, knowing that over time that "summary" may expand and expand until someone decides it's time to split the page, 3) same as 2 but "guard-dog" () the target to make sure excessive expansion doesn't happen, 4) leave things the way they are ('''keep'''), or 5) '''delete''' the page, possibly replacing it with a redirect.  I'm not sure which will be best in the long run, those are the options on the table.  I'm against option 5
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: This is a disruptive re-nomination per , being a |pointy spinoff from the current RfA.  The nomination's claim that work is impossible is blatantly false.  For example, I recently added a relevant photograph.  This was taken in the real world where Potter re-enactment and memorabilia is a billion dollar business – there are entire shops that sell nothing else.  And there is extensive literary analysis of the potions in works such as ''https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Literary_Allusion_in_Harry_Potter/8P8nDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 Literary Allusion in Harry Potter''.  I have made a start on identifying and using such sources but it's a thankless task while the nay-sayers who complain about |no effort, don't do any work themselves.  The applicable policy here is  which states that "''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.''"  As this is clearly possible then that's what we should do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELAFD||WP:POINT||WP:NOEFFORT||WP:ATD)