Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Prior Speculation)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 13:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Prior Speculation)

As was mentioned before, the article is too much about speculation (even the title says so), and although it is "prior to the release," it is still speculation. However, this could be moved into the Harry Potter Wiki, where it would be very welcome. And the speculation thing is tolerated over there. Chosen One 13:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy Keep- ~~Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nor is it a repository of old crystal ball readings of little or no significance.~~ I disagree with the verdict, but if a consensus has been reached. Usrnme h8er 13:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - this page has only just today had its previous VfD closed, with a result of keep. Vashti 13:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again. The prior speculation to this book is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as inappropriate nomination. But abridge (drastically) and merge with the article on the book --Doc (?) 14:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can move this whole article to the HP Wiki, and it won't have to be abridged or kept or merged anymore. And I did not know about the previous nomination. My mistake. ;) Chosen One 15:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go ahead and copy it anyway if you want, you don't even have to wait for the vote to close. CalJW 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless Potter-cruft: If a bit of speculation was correct, it goes in the main article; if a bit of speculation was wrong, what the hell is the point of saving it? --Calton | Talk 15:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- So we don't get the idea that the speculators were always right. Kappa 17:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a break out article and a valid historical record. It should not be deleted any more than it would be if it was still part of the main article. CalJW 16:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, useless - utterly useless. This is an encyclopedia. Not a historical record of speculation by fans for a book. I know Potter is a highly successful and popular book series, but that doesn't excuse it. An article like this seriously degrades the value of Wikipedia. K1Bond007 16:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep This is not speculation. This is information that had been confirmed this time two weeks ago! The consensus was to keep, and disagreeing with consensus is not a reason to put it back on vfd so soon! Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

For the last time, I did not have ANY knowledge of such a nomination! By teh time I got to the article, the Vfd was gone. Chosen One 19:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again. Kappa 17:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After a vfd vote, a note is always made in the talk page. Look there before nominating an article for vfd. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Very strong delete. This is speculation all the same, whether it was confirmed or unconfirmed, it is still. Especially the parts that were not confirmed. Totally unencyclopedic, worthy of the garbage heap. Don Diego 19:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your definition of speculation? Speculation is where people guess what will happen. Confirmed information is where JK Rowling says "this will be in it". Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  - So tell me. What's this confirmed information doing in it's own article titled "Prior Speculation"? If it's confirmed, notable, and encyclopedic then it should be noted on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - not on its own article. This makes absolutely no sense. Merge what is notable and delete. I don't understand why so many people wish to keep (regardless of a VFD recently concluding). This is definitely a double standard. K1Bond007 21:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. James Bell 19:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince --Carnildo 20:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the result of the previous VfD was to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball). Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Longhair | Talk 21:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. This may be encyclopedic, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. Binadot 21:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Just passed another VfD. Factual - documented speculation by others, not by Wikipedia. Notable enough. Nickptar 21:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article just got off VfD. But rename so the s in Speculation isn't capitalized CanadianCaesar 21:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't deserve it's own article. Wellmann 22:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all above reasons. Sp@rkplug 22:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KEEP, this has been Vfd'ed already last week and was kept. Stop trying to delete it.Gateman1997 22:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my explanation on the previous nomination Cyclone49 01:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many darn times do I have to say that I DID NOT HAVE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF ANY NOMINATION???Chosen One 12:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think once was probably enough, people are just explaining the reasons for their votes. Kappa 12:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohoho, I see. Sorry again for the unnecessary nomination. Chosen One 12:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jake013 12:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usually I'd vote for my own articles, but I have to admit, this doesn'T make any sense: Confirmed speculation in an article called Speculation? Come on. H.J.Potter 12:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I edit a lot of the Harry Potter articles, but this is just fancruft. Nandesuka 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article on the book. The bits of information about what Rowling officially released on her web site or said during conventions are fact, not speculation, and I find it interesting to compare these bits of information against what was finally in the book. - Brian Kendig 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (obviously). I'd have moved it to somewhere else instead of "prior speculation", except what would you call it? "Prior revelations"? "prior hints"? Just because "speculation" has evil scary anti-wiki connotations doesn't mean it shouldn't be used where it is appropriate, and seeing as it survived VfD, I don't see how the new title suddenly makes it turn nonencyclopedic in a puff of magic smoke. I mean, could I have in theory completely reversed the original decision into a consensus to delete had I renamed it Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (List of Original Vain Fancrufty Speculative Research Links)? Wicked awesome, I'll keep that trick in mind next time I want to get rid of a page. --AceMyth 04:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic at all now that better information exists. Wikipedia is not a Harry Potter fansite or an archive for speculation. Isomorphic 08:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I believe that it is a good article to keep, but even if I didn't, it's still been kept by a previous VfD, and that verdict should hold. ral 315 20:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge the important bits and delete. I agree that the material here is interesting and relevant for showing, say twenty years from now, some history of this book's impact on Harry Potter fans (and a witness to how strong a hold the book series had on some). It should first be put as it is in the main article (so that people can use the history to see that revision when this article is deleted). Immediately after, a revision should be made so that the main article contains a section of a few paragraphs concerning the speculation the book generated. — Olathe 06:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Harry Potter phenomenon has become so large these days that it is fascinating to look at the amount of spin-off it generates- including predictions, hoax 'insider' info etc. Predictions were a very real part of life in the run-up to to the book and as such deserve to be immortalised. 192.250.97.6 10:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep we have already lost the full summary, which is currently the fifth most visited subject page in Wikipedia. Let's not do any more damage to Wikipedia's appeal. Osomec 19:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is speculative and outdated. Ken 23:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dual Ignition Keep - honestly, what is with all this nonsense about types of 'keep' or 'delete'? Aside from that, I really do think this page should be kept. It's an interesting footnote to the Harry Potter phenominon. -Litefantastic 23:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I take it that Merge means Merge and delete. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So does that mean delete - keep score is 13 - 12 or not? Chosen One 10:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And? --AceMyth 11:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, really. Just wanted to know if I'd grasped the concept. Chosen One 13:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know more about the VfD process Wikipedia:Deletion policy might be of help. --AceMyth 13:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have just taken my own advice and browsed some pages regarding the deletion process. Turns out that "Merge", "Redirect" etc. are actually considered variants of "Keep" (though obviously if there is a reasonable amount of calls to Merge, Redirect, Rename or any such action the admin might decide it to constitute a rough consensus and the result will differ accordingly). I can see the logic behind this in the sense that somebody voting to merge, if the vote depended on them, would probably rather have the content stay at its own page than deleted altogether. Of course many voters are aware that their votes are subject to interpretation and therefore clarify their priorities (e.g. a merge vote of the sort you described would be something to the extent of "Merge, failing that Delete.") --AceMyth 13:41, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well with this one I think any delete votes should be ignored as this should not have been allowed to be Vfd'ed again after only 2 days. It was kept last time and should be automatically this time since there was almost no time in between the nominations.Gateman1997 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, go ahead with whatever you want to do, but please understand that this was not done in bad faith or that I am forcing you to revote for my own obscure reasons. I had no knowledge of the Vfd prior to this Vfd. Chosen One 21:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop taking it personally when people point out that this shouldn't have been renominated. We've all acknowledged you made a mistake and you've been forgiven for it. We're just assuring that the final decision maker and any further voters don't vote delete and mistakenly delete the articleGateman1997 17:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.