Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter trolling

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, KEEP AND MERGE moink 05:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)~~ uhm, it's a delete consensus, if i've ever seen one... --Phroziac ^(talk) 00:48, September 13, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter trolling

Delete. C'mon, could one get any less encyclopedic? Plus a lot of this just happens at Wikipedia... it doesn't deserve its own article and I can't picture anyone caring in two months. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to catalogue all the different possible types of trolling, especially as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete trolls. Especially boring, repetitive ones. -Splash 02:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Holy crap that's what happens in Half-Blood Prince? Why did I click that link?~~ Jokes aside, delete. nn Potter/trollcruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS.—Encephalon | ^ζ 07:56:45, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete - It might ruin the plot for Harry Potter fans such as in the case of the user A Man In Black ! Ouch! Although, I've never read a Harry Potter book anyhow nor would I find this specific article Wiki-worthy enough anyways. UniReb 11:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh. I was kidding. I read the book the day after it was released, before the trolls really got going. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - So was I! :-P UniReb 00:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dumbledore says delete from beyond the grave. Proto t c 12:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a vague, Trelawneyesque vision of a future where we have a page called 'editing Wikipedia articles', and then another one called 'editing the Wikipedia article called 'editing Wikipedia articles' ', and then...anyway what if <spoiler removed>? We'll all look like Muggles. Peeper 13:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peeper, why'd you spoil it for me? ;) Amren ^(talk) 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Amren...obliviate! Peeper 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could possibly be merged into a spoiler trolling article? Deliberately posting spoilers is hardly confined to Harry Potter. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Please be careful when voting – there are people who are interested in HP that haven't read the book yet, and I've removed two spoilers from this discussion already. android 79 16:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article is Harry Potter trolling. 67.101.26.107 17:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RedWolf24, except I can't see anyone caring right now. CDC (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps rename to something more descriptive. If this has surfaced in radio media, roadside banners, numerous bulletin boards and blogs, chat rooms, and it appears to be a self-sustaining meme, I think this meets the notability test. I mean, Wikipedia has articles for 'pwned' and other fad terminology and phenomena. I do not recall other movie spoiling being so public or aggressive. I don't know if "trolling" is the right word, though, perhaps a neologism like "spoiler-sporting" would be better. The Hokkaido Crow 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't heard it surfacing in media and it doesn't make sense if it were to, considering they'd have to spoil it, and then bad stuff would happen to that media station. Pwned is not a fad as we still keep saying it. And trolling is definitely the word just as we use trolling for GNAA. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince as per the discussion on the article's talk page - this ~~VFD~~ AFD was rather unneccessary because there it could've been merged had the person been given a chance to do so, some of the information is verifiable and worthy of mention on the book's page, the bridge incident in particular (BBC) -- Joolz 23:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Joolz. -HX 00:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the definition of trolling is encyclopedic, notable examples like the GNAA are borderline, but Harry Potter zealots aren't. What's next, Wiki-cheese trolling? --Tito xd 03:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a true encyclopedia article. SujinYH 23:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not worth its own article, but worth mentioning in HBP. (preceding unsigned comment by Bjwebb 07:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Merge, it doesn't deserve its own page, but it's a huge fad and should be mentioned somewhere.--Theuniversal 23:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever content is actually important, if any, could be covered in the HBP article. Friday (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --212.149.179.127 08:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trolling universe has no bounds. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid Article Evanesco! Seriously, this article IS a troll. Give it up. --DocSigma 15:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good riddance to bad rubbish Ashibaka (tock) 15:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on the book, half blood prince. It is worth a para telling a bit more about the hype surrounding HPB, and probably fits much better there. Sandpiper 23:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one or two of the above suggest this is about wiki reporting wiki, or just general lists of trolling. Maybe the article has been edited already, but I don't see that there. It is another aspect of the biggest selling fiction book in the world, which is quite a noteable achievement.Sandpiper 23:40, 9 September 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.