Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter: Book Seven

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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 keep. —Cryptic (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter: Book Seven

If this book comes out, it wont be until 2007!

  • Keep - Combination of things that will probably happen in HP7, and will most likely become the entry on the book when it comes out.
  • Keep - There is no reason to NOT allow this to exist.
  • Keep - no copywrite violation in the whole article.
  • Keep - page is informative and contains information collected from statements made by the author
  • Delete - As Grand Theft Auto IV was deleted! - Agent003
  • Keep - Huge amounts of guesswork/original research once existed in the article but have since been removed almost entirely -- the article now contains much more definite information, taken by author statements. We'll eventually and gradually been given even more info (as in the past where we were gradually given even chapter titles, info about the level of the writing process, etc, etc) Aris Katsaris 15:25, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is not an urgent need to conserve space. --bjweInsert non-formatted text herebb 15:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia has plenty of information on future events, like the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, and the 2012 London Olympics. Wikipedia even has pages for entire years that have not yet happened. Like Bjwebb pointed out, we're not runing out of paper here. Lovelac7 16:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. —Cryptic (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. We have London 2012 so why not Harry Potter 7? Plus, it has a huge fan following. 80.42.28.76 16:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia has information on stuff like the year 2030, which is much farther away than 2007 Outofex1le
Responce to everyone who has so far voted 'Keep' - Grand Theft Auto 4 was deleted because it was a future event (to be bought out in 2007), now how is that different to here?!
I don't think GTA4 had a release date when it was first up - [1] suggests that was first revealed for October 2006 yesterday (this is now a verifiable fact, so could perhaps be put in a new article). As for this book series, it's been announced I don't know how many times that it's gonna be seven books, and the facts in there are pretty verifiable, so Keep Sam Vimes 18:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it only contains verifiable facts. JiMternet 19:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The release of the Harry Potter book is as predictable as an astronomical event. Hence Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply. You might notice that I have tweaked the crystal ball section slightly before posting. However, I am merely reverting this edit, which was not discussed on the talk page. Superm401 | Talk 20:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)(change back to original vote done by me. Superm401 | Talk 14:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. The article is now mainly a collection of lists of random Book Seven trivia. None of the other editors of the page have any desire to change that. As WP:NOT expounds, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." If are article can't be anything but a random jumble of facts, it shouldn't be there at all. Furthermore, it is plainly bad style. I urge people to check the current version of the article and reconsider their votes. (vote changed by me) Superm401 | Talk 21:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - My understanding of VfD is that a page should only be deleted if the title of the article is one for which no sutable article might be placed there. So per yoru original comments I think its worth keeping, even if in its current state the quality is left much to be desired.
Fair enough. My vote change was a bit impulsive. Superm401 | Talk 14:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dalf | Talk 05:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, As the vast majority of speculative material has been removed, and what is left mainly reports factual, verifiable author statements.
  • Keep, Until the book is released - Nevica 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Most of the rumours have been deleted. - User:Mozart2005 15:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Harry Potter. - The Time Killer
  • Keep. If someone looks up book 7 in wiki they will expect to find something more than the known definite facts, which they probably will know already (since they are few). They will expect this article also to contain reasonable analysis of what could (must) be in it, based on the other books so far, and further hints which will undoubtedly come along as the authors seek a bit of publicity. For example, Rowlings has already stated that it will contain more about Dumbledore, despite his just having been killed off.Sandpiper 16:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no idea why Wikipedia is so full of people who fancy themselves janitors; we are not running out of paper, and this information is encyclopedic.67.180.40.190 21:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a crystal ball; the chances of this not happening are about as great as the US becoming a military dictatorship tomorrow, in which case we might as well VfD U.S. presidential election, 2008 again CanadianCaesar 23:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't believe this is even up for debate. Future events are notable as long as it will definitely happen. We know it will come out eventually. Keep the page as it is now. Add more information about its release as is received. Ryan 05:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean it up so its not just a list of trivia. There shoudl be at least a section in the article about the significance the book will have for the industry and not focuse exclusivly what is likely to be *IN* the book. I bealieve that this article coudl actually be written entirely without significant refrence to what is likley to be in the book (though that woudl be a bit extream). Dalf | Talk 05:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--michael180 18:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs cleanup, not deletion. There is, at this point, enough factual information about this book to make a short article. Furthermore, the article's been around since before book 6, and it'll probably keep being recreated if it is deleted. I think it's far better to have a maintained article here than to have whatever stub someone's put up most recently. RSpeer 05:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC) (reposted 01:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC) after page was reverted)
  • Keep There's a lot of crazy speculation about yet-to-be-released Harry Potter books (or book, as there's only the one left now) on the net. This article, however, contains none of it. It's all information that can be backed up in one way or another. Icarus 03:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - it's good to help people while they wait in anticipation for this next book (unsigned comment by 69.192.247.105 Hansonc 16:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC))
  • Strong Keep - Already highly notable. And notability takes precedence over Crystalballery. If we have an article on the 2020 Summer Olympics, I think we can make room for this! Sonic Mew | talk to me 22:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks interesting to me, despite being about a book not yet written. Kingal86 21:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Carioca 21:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Verified information. hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 21:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Can we just consider this decision made, already? Hipocrite 18:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Superm401. --Wikiacc (talk) 18:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Fact is that this article definitely can evolve into good source of information. --Lmach 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we close this discussion already? Hermione1980 19:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well, we should wait the whole five days. But with such overwhelming consensus, I don't see a delete happening in that time. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • This VfD has existed since the 23rd. It's now the 30th. Isn't that more than five days? Or is this one of those cases where it wasn't put on the main VfD page until a later date, and I'm not aware of it (which is possible!)? Hermione1980 20:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. Perfectly valid subject, as the encyclopedic content of the article shows. Not perfect, sure. And considering the number of unsigned and/or IP votes (including the nomination itself), maybe we should just leave this open permanently as an excellent way of wasting the time of those who just want to waste everyone's time, so the rest of us can get on with writing an encyclopedia? (;-> No, I guess not... Pity... Andrewa 20:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Entire article is full of qualifiers like "if", "may", "might", "reportedly", and "suggest". Predawn 06:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Facts will replace theory in due course 14:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter:_Book_Seven&oldid=1080173366"