Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.A.B.
Speculation. The only part of this article that isn't unverifiable, original research, or both is the first line: "R.A.B. is a set of initials from J.K. Rowling's book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." —Cryptic (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOR --Allen3 talk 00:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep even nominator states that the subject isn't unverifiable or original research and the edit history of the article suggests an interest. If there are parts of any article that fall under original research then you delete those sections, not an entire article. --TheMidnighters 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- "XYZ is a set of initials from Book Q" is not an article unless it's expandable. This is not. —Cryptic (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well judging by the size of the article and the amount of contributors I'd say it has been expanded. The initials refer to a character that is apparently notable. There is speculation and debate in other articles (Balrog for example) but when it is supported by citations and sources from the author I think it's allowable. --TheMidnighters 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan. However, the number of HP related articles is already growing too large, and this article is ONLY about speculation. It could serve no other purpose. I urge anyone considering a keep vote to read WP:NOT and think about it. Friday 01:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to aome proper place. DES 02:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Too mcuh cystal ballery. Although I have to say the book is quite amazing. But the article is unencyclopedic. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I'm guessing this information is already in about five other articles anyway. Hansamurai 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete as unverifiable fancruft speculation. Postdlf 04:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I edited it to make it more encyclopedia-like. Osu8907 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete until it's actually revealed who it is (presumably in the seventh book), and then merge into the article of that character. Cyclone49 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete - fancruft. --Idont Havaname 07:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Is there any good reason not to merge and redirect? Or at least merge? I think the article as it stands is decent, and as a section in the HBP book article might be good. Yes, the HBP article is getting long, but I think coverage of one of the book's most crucial mysteries is the sort of thing we do for more "classic" literature. I don't see why it would be inappropriate here. Let's preserve this reasonably well-written content, even though it is clearly not a free-standing article. Jwrosenzweig 07:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Please watch the article for VFD notice removal. --Tim Pope 09:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)