Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zxcvbnm (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 24 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball)

Speculation and original research, if anything should be merged into the main article. Sorry, I know I'm going to be pissing off a lot of Harry Potter fans, but I don't think this is encyclopedic. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further, and don't know why I didn't mention this before, but please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article violates this. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How does it violate the "crystal ball" rule? Kappa 17:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article deals with speculation, most of it non-notable and that which is notable should be merged into the main Harry Potter book. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever been convinced by a reference to this "rule". CalJW 17:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not speculation. The key point for this article is that it is information confirmed prior to the books release, under 26 hours ago. As it has been released, we can now see for ourselves that it was not just crystalballery. I am also confused as to how this can be called original research. Please explain. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Because the information is all mostly speculation, most of it is non-notable. That which is notable should be merged into the main Harry Potter article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation. Its stuff that was speculation prior to the true information being revealed, as such forms a notable piece about fan culture, on what is the biggest book sale in the world on one day ever. ~~~~ 13:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince or rename. Aecis 15:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge This article has no need to be around with the book now out. I would personally delete it. However, some may want the information so to keep these people happy, maybe it would be best if it could be merged into the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince atricle --RingbearerNZ 02:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Encyclopedias should contain facts, not "what could have been facts" Davidbod
  • Keep but probably rename, encyclopedia should preserve facts, not gratuituously remove them. Kappa 15:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cleanup is required to remove duplicate material and cite sources, but that's no reason for deletion. JYolkowski // talk 15:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything of value into the main article.
  • Delete. It served its purpose; however, facts that were leaked before the book came out won't be referenced by anybody now that they can, you know, see all the facts without having to sift through leaks. Almafeta 17:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valuable record. There will not be room for everything in the main article. CalJW 17:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the book is out, this can be deleted. Not that I care for Harry Potter, though. Wake me when Star Trek XI or Star Wars VII is out. — JIP | Talk 17:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because we're not fans of a paticular series, is NOT a reason to delete information on a paticular topic. This is factual information about a topic that happens to have a great appeal to many people. That is the sort of thing this wikipedia was meant to do, provide a place for the community to talk about and post relavent facts for topics that interest them. So while i myself am not a fan, I say keep it.
    • I voted "delete" because this article is useless now that the book is out, not because I'm not a Harry Potter fan. I would have voted "delete" for Star Trek XI (Crystal Ball) or Star Wars VII (Crystal Ball) too. Had I noticed this VfD before the book was out, I would have voted "keep" or abstained. — JIP | Talk 18:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article. I wonder if we picked who the halfblood prince is. Capitalistroadster 18:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is important to recognise that Harry Potter is a unique phenomenon - not even the His Dark Materials trilogy caused such a stir even though many would argue that it probably should have given its formidable subject matter. The leaks, speculation - its all part and parcel of the Potter experience. Given that - I think deleting for its own sake would be a huge mistake. Information can be re-organised, re-named - but it is valid exactly because of the uniqueness of the situation. I am glad to see that Wikipedia provides such in-depth detail and I honestly dont see how anything that has been done either here or in the main article (especially the summaries - which are just brilliant!) contradicts what this enterprise is supposed to be about. The main article can't possibly house everything and I think this is a very worthwhile repository. I agree with whoever said that "Cleanup is required to remove duplicate material and cite sources, but that's no reason for deletion." Keep it. Severina 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a small section into the main article. ed g2s • talk 19:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main book article anything that is useful and not already duplicated elsewhere. 23skidoo 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup, rename to something a little more decent (like "Rumours prior to the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" or something) and follow a clear format of "This was the rumor... This was how fans reacted... This is what happened in the book." --AceMyth 21:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information that is encyclopedic and relevant to a particular audience is NEVER useless. It is not your job to delete things just because you don't think it's relevant. Cynicalkane 21:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may be very helpful for researchers working in the area of publishing policy, trade secrets, information flow, memes etc. Knowing almost exactly who, what and when revealed something from the unpublished, but highly demanded book is invaluable. Agree that cleaning and renaming will help. 82.210.153.132 21:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge a small section into the main article. Has served it's purpose. Thue | talk 23:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or send it to some fan's user page. Wikipedia is not a Harry Potter rumor site. If it were an article about Harry Potter rumors (i.e. the phenomenon), that would be something different. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like a combination of a) outdated rumors compiled before the release of the book, and b) spoilers from the book placed by one persistant editor he keeps trying to delete them from the main book article. The first is pure fancruft and the second doesn't belong here. --Calton | Talk 00:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This was split from the main article to allow the new info to go in, but to keep the information at the same time. It contains the confirmed information befre the books release, which was a mere 15 hours before this vfd was started. Any Harry Potter fan will find that of interest, (making it not fancruft.) If you want a rename, how about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince/Archive. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Any Harry Potter fan will find that of interest, (making it not fancruft.) That statement makes NO sense whatsoever, since fancruft means "of interest ONLY to fans", not "not of interest to fans". --Calton | Talk 09:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but badly needs cleanup. I suppose this could also serve as a collection of all the major rumors floating around, and with a note on each of them whether that rumor was true or false (and if it's false, what the truth is). Shouldn't be merged with the main HBP article because that would make it way too long. --FatherGuidoSarducci 01:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with main article (first choice); or Delete (second choice). Book is issued, only need for one article. Significant unmet rumors or expectations can also be merged to main article. There is no reason any "archive" couldn't exist there as well. Xoloz 04:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has historical value. — — Ŭalabio‽ 04:39:44, 2005-07-17 (UTC)
  • Delete per Davidbod. I suppose this stuff is a hair more notable than the various Pokecruft, but fancruft and speculation belong on fansites, not in encyclopedias. Maybe it could be mentioned briefly in the book's article. --Idont Havaname 05:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable archive of hype leading up to the book. --WikiFan04TALK TO ME! ;-) 00:59, 17 Jul 2005 (CDT)
  • Keep or Merge This is a good archive of the titbids of intformation and leaks leading upto the release of the book. The main article is currently rather large so I'd go for keep so as not to overload the main article. However, if the consensus is to remove this article then I'd rather see the relevant information placed in the main article. --Colin Angus Mackay 08:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's actually quite an informative and interesting article, but it should probably be given a different title. Cyclone49 11:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge as per Ldrhcp and Davidbod. --Denihilonihil 11:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the information has historical value and did exist without problems before the book was released. It should be merged back into the main article, now that the plot synopsis has been moved over to a different page - Master Of Ninja 11:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rather interesting and chronicles the scale of the event. --84.66.6.29 13:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Very funny name though. Radiant_>|< 13:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. ~~~~ 13:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting article on the speculation leading up to publication. Vashti 13:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 24 at 14:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cynical 14:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a "speculation" section, failing that keep. Nice historical record. Nickptar 17:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. --Cruci 18:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hype and rumours about the book are worthy of their own article. However, the title should be changed and the article cleaned up. R.suleman 19:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename and clean up, perhaps including adding what the "right answers" turned out to be if it's worth the spoiler warnings. This isn't speculation by Wikipedia, it's encyclopedic reporting of speculation elsewhere. Robin Johnson 19:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It documents an unprecedented phenomenon within Western popular culture. Never has any book been the subject of this kind of pre-release hype, never has this kind of local pageantry been inspired by the release of a book, either for adults or for children. Knowing the details of what was speculated about a forthcoming installment provides understanding as to what was important to this subsection of the general public at this time. (I think they ought to retain the title, too, including the "Crystal Ball" part. It's too funny!) --Bluejay Young 19:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. This article actually shows up under "rumours" of the main HBP article. Making a section of rumours in the main HBP article is good; making a whole article, especially when some of this information is JKR-verified (especially in the other information section). So merge the important stuff (which, to be honest, isn't much) with the main article and delete the main article because there is no real premise. SujinYH 20:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, make this the main article of the "Rumors" section in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Alterego 21:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (rumours); current name is cute, but for something that has already come out, really makes no sense. Then cleanup to comment on the rumors vs. what actually happened, as per Robin Johnson. Dcarrano 22:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, let interested editors manage it as they see fit. Everyking 22:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It will still be interesting! And you never know who may find it useful! Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree... as the book is out there is no need for this page anymore.
This page was specifically created because the main book's page was needed! Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
AGREED (Unsigned comment by 68.222.104.73 (talk · contribs)
  • KEEP, this article is still quite relevant to anyone who has not read the book.Gateman1997 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything non-crufty, or, failing that, just Delete. Or maybe put into a "Harry Potter fandom" article (I know there's one around) but not one on its own. Crystal Ball content is not supposed to be kept, and most rumours/speculation about something turn out to be false anyway. We aim to be factual and objective, and listing hundreds of "fans hoped for//it was rumoured that ... but instead..." statements is just plain pointless. GarrettTalk 01:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exploding Boy 02:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any information about the book not all ready in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince into it. Information about the widespread speculation should be included in the merge. However, this is not the same as noting every theory that was speculated. I.E. it is okay to say that millions of fans debated the identity of the Half Blood Prince. That's because that entails a notable amount of speculation. It is not okay, however, to say that the best theory is Bill Weasley and then give a page-long explanation of the reasons why. It is not necessary to include every last theory proposed because they are not the interesting part. If there was something especially notable about any of them, such as a radical or controversial prediction, that would be different. Right now, however, the article's focus is on what was believed, rather than the fact that people believed it. In fact, its stated goal is to say "what was known" prior to the release. This is just a deliberate limit of the information we have on HBP. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia, where we strive to be comprehensive. We would never have an article on "what was known about chemistry in 1942," although that is a part of history. I am going through the article now. I will remove most of the guesses and previews themselves while leaving notable information about them. I will leave what is necessary to support the previous. I hope you get what I mean.Superm401 | Talk 02:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC) (comment modified by me Superm401 | Talk 03:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC))
  • I've worked a fair bit on the Harry Potter articles recently, and you're definitely not pissing me off. In fact, I'd really like to cut as much speculation as possible. The contents of this article was useful for verified information about the upcoming book (ie, that Rowling herself verified), but now that the real thing is out, this article no longer has any purpose. Merge anything that is verified as true with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and leave out the rest. --Deathphoenix 03:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Interesting article about speculation before the book was released. Maybe even lock as an archival as all new information should go to the book's article. Hansamurai 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have an archival lock. It's called article history. However, the active version of the article should represent the current state of knowledge regarding a topic. That is already in the main article on HBP. That current state of knowledge can include information regarding past predictions(it's part of history); however, those predictions should be notable in some way. Superm401 | Talk 05:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems merely to be a question of organisation and naming. Of course we are going to keep the verfiable information (whether it turned out right or wrong is irrelevant). Keep Pcb21| Pete 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (216.62.201.253 did not sign off)
  • Keep May need some reworking, but speculations about the content of Harry Potter 6 is a valid topic, at least until everybody can read the entire series. Theodore W.
  • Delete. This is not even a proper encyclopedia article, just a compilation of fan speculation about a particular book. A compilation of fan speculation on a book belongs, at best, on a fan site. It does not matter whether the book sells nine or nine million copies, this information will never be encyclopedic. Some of our users need to learn the difference between a general knowledge base and an encyclopedia. Indrian 15:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Rumors and speculation about a book that has already been released is no where near encyclopedic. In fact, to put it frankly, it's stupid. Merge what may be notable (such as pictures and etc), but this article should not exist. K1Bond007 19:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly pointless. Leithp 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge merge merge merge. There's no reason not to mention what was guessed correctly. The current HBP article is pretty short, so it wouldn't hurt to merge the stuff back in. If kept, it must be renamed. Ingoolemo talk 02:17, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean up, and including what the "right answers" turned out to be when the book was released.
  • Keep for historical reasons - given the importance of Harry Potter. JuntungWu 20:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont really care about Harry Potter but I think its an important article. And by the looks of this VfD itll end as No Consensus. Redwolf24 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know it might be interesting but it is unencyclopedic and totally pointless. It is like having a speculation page in a printed encyclopedia.--Zxcvbnm 03:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_(Crystal_Ball)&oldid=19484778"