Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination)
The argument regarding verifiability seems ludicrous to me - the information is factual, uncontentious, and comprehensively substantiated by multiple uninterested secondary sources. We do not need a Harvard Law Review article to establish that the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter stories. The references listed in external links do a particularly fine job already. A topic which is intimately related to a story that sold 325+ million books is notable. I gave a more comprehensive spiel which I won't repeat on why I think this article does pass  on the DRV, but whether I was correct or not is really just a trivial technicality. If it were true that the article in question failed the minutia of , , or whatever similar policy, then that policy should be |ignored without hesitation. The topic does not need explicit criteria, because there are no ambiguities any larger than an Archaea|archaeon. There are a finite number of spells involved in the Harry Potter stories, and we can identify names and descriptions for nearly all of them. This is clearly an issue of virtually no relevance to the potential of the article and if it's even worth discussing then that should be done on it's talk page
— User:XDanielx, 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:N||WP:FICT||WP:IGNORE (Wikipedia:Notability)