Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Snowspinner 04:21, July 28, 2005


 * This page was transwikied to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Half-Blood Prince. Comments made after closing have been moved to the talk page.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary
It copies information all ready existing in the synopsis on the main Half-Blood Prince page. All other information on this page was deemed unnecessary for the main page. Might also be a copyright violation, since it is in essence a condensed version of the book itself rather than a mere summary. Deridolus 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Closing admin should note the vast number of sockpuppet, anonymous, and new-user voters turning up here, as well as attempts to alter people's votes. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a copyright violation: copyright doesn't cover ideas, reviews or summuries. It covers just plain text. 12:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Copyright does cover derivative works, including condensations.

Votes made logged in

 * Strong keep. Useful
 * Strong keep The controversy over the attempt to prevent Canadian purchasers of the book from reading their own books, and the resulting protest by way of posting the plot on the internet, is of legitimate interest as a recent event which deserves historical preservation in this encyclopedia.  Wikipedia should not take sides, but it should record the historical facts.  --Kasreyn
 * This plot was not a result of that. It was formed after the books were published.  At any rate, mentions of those can be kept in the article.  &mdash; 131.230.109.211 03:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This controvery is dealt with in the main article. The plot synopsis in the main article is perfectly adequate -- if a reader wants to know more, they can read the book. I vote for deletion. The purpose of an encycloedia is not to store a full plot synopsis for every book, film, play, etc, ever published or produced. --Urbane legend 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Useful, fair, and fair use. --Arcadian 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Bollar 20:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informative and useful. --Sanguinus 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, if the main article get's too large, then just fork it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Come on now. David | Talk 21:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Harry Potter (plot) &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Harry Potter (plot) should contain a summary, not full plot, of the story. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep'- Deleting of this is limiting free access to information.--Sina 22:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. This isn't public domain information, it's the full plot of a copyrighted book!--Urbane legend 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Either this article needs to go, or the plot "summary" in the main article needs to be pared down (since this makes it entirely unnecessary). -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.Capitalistroadster 23:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Very useful? The plot summary on the main page for Half-Blood Prince is very useful. This is just over-indulgence. And I'm not at all certain that placing nearly the entire contents of the story in an article is kosher with regards to copyright laws. If it's useful like you say, its only use would be to make reading the book unnecessary. Is wikipedia an encylopedia or an online version of Cliffnotes, to paraphrase someone from the Half-Blood Prince talk page?--Deridolus 23:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Addendum - failing deletion, it needs to at the very least be pruned a good deal and merged back in with the original article.--Deridolus 23:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, preferably speedily, and rename. The original article is too long as it is; that's why this was spun out into its own article.  JYolkowski // talk 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, but only if the more descriptive version of each chapter is the one that is used, otherwise Keep. - Steggall 02:46 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page does serve a different purpose to other pages with plot summaries. This page should optimally contain 32 kB of text summarising the plot; Harry Potter (plot) should summarise the plot of all 6 books so far in 32 kB and the actual book article should simply have a brief, 15-line plot summary, focussing on other aspects of impact, etc. --Oldak Quill 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is an international phenomenon and is fair use. Keep Wiki's chapter by chapter summary separate. It serves as a service on a subject where so much conjucture and half truth exists elsewhere. --Kcswampfox 05:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User has 4 edits, all related to this book. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So what? Stop pointing out how few edits people have, as if it completely devalues their vote. If the comment is insightful or useful, what does it matter? This is not helping the discussion. royblumy 16:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this doesn't fit with naming conventions... at the very least it should probably be moved, although I'm not sure exactly where. This may be overdoing it, though...  --L33tminion (talk) 05:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no other full chapter summaries for any of the other HP books, and there need not be one for this entry either. A short book summary should suffice. --Could
 * User has 11 edits. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a full exposition of the entire plot of the Harry Potter saga at Harry Potter (plot): this article will be merged into that one once it is safe to do so (unless obviously the full plot is split up into separate articles for each book for size). Phil | Talk 08:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Phil. This is not a condensed version of the book, unless it is reusing most of its phrases directly from the book, so I doubt that the copyright argument above has any merit.-gadfium 08:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's not doing any harm whatsoever. The creation of a summary is covered under fair use.  -koolman2 09:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. (summary) rather than -Full Plot Summary. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- for now, but name it plot summary instead of full plot summary and link the content from the title's main article instead of having plot summaries of different lengths in two different articles --Mysidia 12:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I personally don't think that something this detailed is really necessary for an encylopedia article. How much is enough? One 32kb article per chapter? OTOH, the existence of a bloated article like this may be enough to prevent well-intentioned fans from bloating up the main Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which really was getting too unwieldy with all these unnecessary details. --Deathphoenix 13:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Harry Potter (plot), as mentioned by others. I like this option, and it's been done before. --Deathphoenix 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep-- I don't have 30 bucks, nor the time to read the book. Whoever started this I commend you. Pacific Coast Highway 15:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Please keep this. I think it is a valuable resource and a great companion for anyone who is really interested in this Harry Potter book. It does no harm and if it can not be kept, than it should be merged with the main article. I stand strongly by my opinion. --Cameron 16:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think that this should be kept for now - it may well be pared down over time though.Rubextablet 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that people aren't voting according to the rules. What we should be voting on is whether or not this is encyclopaedic and belongs on Wikidedia. In my view, it doesn't fit either requirement. There's no precedent on Wikipedia for this type of super-detailed, chapter-by-chapter synopsis and it just goes overboard in my opinion. If you can't afford to buy the book, you can borrow it from a library or a friend or wait until the movie comes out on TV. Wikipedia is not here to provide free e-books. My vote is to delete with prejudice--meaning that we don't want to set a precedent here; the brief overviews/synopses we have for other major works (including The Satanic Verses, Huck Finn, Pride and Prejudice, and even the other Harry books) are plenty. Exploding Boy 16:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep Exploding Boy raises legitimate points. If the chapter by chapter plot summary can be argued to remain on Wikipedia then by all means remain. Personal opinion though, I find it extremely useful to find what each chapter is about, a sort of... table of contents if you will. --takagawa-kun 19:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with the arguments for Keep. Jonathunder 17:41, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
 * Keep for a few weeks, then Delete. While it's not exactly encyclopedic, we'd be chasing clones all over the place.  In a few more weeks, it will be old news and it can be either deleted or moved to a user page. Donovan Ravenhull 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepOf course it won't be. It is of permanent interest, and it was created by many users, not one. CalJW 19:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is completely different from the main article! --Skuld&Dagger; insult 20:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary of votes as of now. 25 keep, 3 Merge, 4 delete. Keeping the article holds firm majority --takagawa-kun 19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete . This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Excessively long and detailed plot summaries are just not appropriate. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to strong delete (not that it makes any difference) due to the potential that this is a very risky copyvio (see discussion below). My original comments about the unsuitability of this 'article' for an encyclopedia still stand. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, until it can be satisfactorily merged with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, then redirect or delete. Hermione1980 22:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete after a few weeks. Supporters are fanatics.  I'm sure the majority are kids. Please, if you want to read a super-long summary, go and read the book.  Why deprive yourself of the pleasure? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book summary network.  And it's not a network to provide free plot details for those who simply don't want to buy the book. Exploding Boy's point is well taken. Mandel 22:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A brief summary of the plot is fair use. A detailed description of pretty much every significant event is a copyright violation. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  23:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is copyvivio, then we don't even need to vote on it. Quote from Wikipedia's fair use article: "Conversely, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985), the use of less than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a news magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial." Mandel 23:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't even close to copyvio. In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the defendent copied verbatim "the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript." The proper analogy would be if we had a page where we copied the pages with the murder in Chapter 27. But I don't think I see any quotes longer than six words long on the entire page. Here's 471 U.S. 539, the case referenced, for context. (Disclaimer: IANAL) --Arcadian 01:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this: in Twin Peaks Productions v. Publications International (91 Civ. 0626, S.D.N.Y., November 1991) the District Court found a book publisher guilty for infringing a film's copyright after it produced substantial detailed summaries in which it "paraphrased substantial portions". The conclusion of the court? "A detailed summary of plot constitutes an abridgment that exceeds what is required to serve any legitimate purpose". If Rowling files a lawsuit, I'll like to see people who voted 'keep' chip in. Mandel 05:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, arguments like "i don't have time to read the book so this told me exactly what happened saving me time" and "I don't have 30 bucks, nor the time to read the book" (I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just saying what was said before) pretty much would make their case. Maybe I sound paranoid, but this page could be presented as an exhibit in Rowling v. Wikimedia Foundation or a similar case that no one wants to see. I change my vote to strong delete. --Titoxd 06:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge with main article in a few weeks when the whole mania has died off.--TexasDex 00:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Harry Potter (plot), after six books I think it would be easy to follow the pattern -Acjelen 00:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't CliffsNotespedia. tregoweth 00:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to say that Exploding Boy is right on. tregoweth 15:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

--Potatoeman57 Somehow I feel that we need to inform a higher authority, eg. the Board of Trustees about this. If a copyvio lawsuit could potentially occur, it's only fair that those people who are truly involved be informed, not us lay Wikipedians. If they decide to delegate the final judgment to us, then the decision of this VfD will suffice. Mandel 11:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep
 * This is just a lawsuit waiting to happen. The book hasn't been for sale for a week, and basically, we're providing a way to find out what happens in the book without having to buy it. The only thing that Scholastic has to do is to prove that customers didn't have to read the book because this article was too detailed, and they'll be more than happy to file suit for lost revenues. I strongly urge caution when dealing with things that could financially hurt Wikipedia, as is the case with this article, and I vote to delete (read above), or at a bare minimum, summarize, at least for now. --Titoxd 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete even if not a copyvio. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can't see any problem with copyright, but this is not encyclopedia. Why don't all these Harry Potter fans set up a Wikicity where this kind of article would be far more appropriate--nixie 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge with Harry Potter (plot). None of the other books (and I don't just mean Harry Potter here) has an article like this. If you want to know what happens in this much detail, read the book. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 03:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What harm does it do where it is? There are several works of fiction that receive just as thorough treatment in Wikipedia. Here is a whole article dedicated to a single chapter of one book: Mark 16. &mdash; David Remahl 03:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Errr, that's a book of the Bible, this is Harry Potter.... &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is interesting and does not provide enough information as to completely take away the point of reading the book. Heru Jameson 03:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC) Heru Jameson
 * Comment: I agree completely. I've read through the entire summary, and just got the book today, and started reading it.  The summary only provides the main parts of the book, and none of the back-story or hidden clues.  By the way, three of the other books in this series have similar LONG plot summaries, although they aren't chapter-by-chapter: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. -koolman2 04:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge with Harry Potter (plot). For now, let's keep it for everyone to edit the most important plot points in and useless stuff out. I agree with Exploding Boy, this is an encyclopedia and the rules must be upheld.--Janarius 04:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As tregoweth unintentionally pointed out, this is no more copyvio than Cliffs' Notes is. Nightwatch 07:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of the works that Cliffs'Notes deal with are out of copyright. The argument used many times is that this article is useful.  Useful for what? Mandel 08:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * My point was, Wikipedia currently doesn't contain super-detailed summaries of books, and that there's no reason to start now. tregoweth 15:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge with Half-Blood Prince I see no reason for books and movies to have separate summary pages. If you want to get that detailed, use outside links, such as with all three of the Lord of the Rings pages, which have succinct summaries in 3 paragraphs or so. It would be one thing if this summary included detailed analysis of themes or something like that, but it's just a blow by blow, completely unencyclopedic. James 08:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge per James. There is nothing notable here which a short summary could not accomplish -Harmil 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've voted, however I would like to second the above. Voting should never take priority over the legal status of WP, and if the Board feels that this article constitutes a copyvio sufficient to initiate legal action, then it should be removed post-haste. Personally, I feel that it is questionable, and would seek the publisher's permission at a minimum (which is unlikely to be granted). -Harmil 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thirded. If this is a copyvio, Harry Potter is such a vast money-making empire that I have a suspicion we could be at great risk of a lawsuit. The board should be informed, and with a bit of luck they will decreee that it needs deleting on legal grounds. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Usually, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution (we're not permitted to use logos of other encyclopedias anywhere on the 'pedia, even if they do constitute fair use) because no one wants a costly lawsuit that could shut the entire project down. Maybe someone should tell Jimbo Wales about this. --Titoxd 20:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unofficially, since I've not consulted with the rest of the Board about it, I'd advise listening to Michael Snow, who has made some comments at the end of this page. He is a member of the Wikimedia legal department. The chances are, if you formally asked the board to comment, we'd pass on the request to juriwiki and Michael would be the one replying on our behalf anyway, so condensing the content and deleting the article is likely the Board's preferred option. Angela (disclaimers) 06:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Angela and Michael. If this article (which interest is questionnable) is a copyvio, then it should just be deleted. It does not have much interest to ask to permission to the editor, because if permission is ever granted, it will be for wikipedia only and not others. This is not really within our mission. I'd support condensing and deleting the article just as well. This is most of the time what is done with interesting copyvio content and there is no valid reason for this case to be different. Anthere 09:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to address the issue of summaries in general. I think we definitely need a policy on this, especially if there are legal ramifications. James 15:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge to whichever page is deemed most appropriate. I'm not so worried about its encyclopedic value, more the copyright problems of placing such a large derivative work online. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  15:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge; as it is, this is legally... dodgy. James F. (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but reduce to 32K A slight modification of my previous vote. I've put in a request at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use for to get guidance. To make sure we're all on the same page, right now the summary is 8235 words, 50 kilobytes, and approximately 4% of the source text. As you know if you've read above, I support the existence of this page, but I'll agree that the page is too long as is. If I had to say where I'd draw the line, in my opinion, the 32 kilobyte page limit (about 5000 words) seems like a natural and sustainable solution. If you're voting to delete because of copyvio concerns because the summary is too long, please indicate approximately what length of summary constitutes copyvio in your opinion. --Arcadian 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Somewhat strong delete. My eternal hatred of Harry Potter not withstanding, there is absolutely no need for such a redundant article on wikipedia. This is not a summary, it's a freaking rewrite. We can all go and buy the book if we wanted, or borrow from a friend if we can't afford it. -Hmib 16:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge as stated above. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge. Way too long and detailed. Hansamurai 20:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and condense; however, all legal issues should take precedence over this VfD. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * strong keep -- ridiculous that this is even on vfd. dont like the detail? try editing. ---FoodMarket talk! 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, not close to copyvio. Definite fair use -- see episode guides at snpp.com for fair use summaries of simpsons episodes much more comprehensvive of these chapters. ---FoodMarket talk! 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What makes you think they haven't had permission from Fox to do such a thing? Mandel 03:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete -- not remotely a copyright violation, but also not encyclopedic. Let the fansites have this, and link to it, if you'd like.Shmuel 22:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep - Considering that this summarises the book in less time than it takes to read a chapter in the real book I cannot see where the arguments that this is a copyright violation come from. I would say this is fair use and gives a better insight than the synopsis on the book's main page. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to condense and merge - If people are linking to this as a substiture for the book then my thoughts on the subject were clearly wrong. --Colin Angus Mackay
 * Transwiki [to Wikibooks]. We is NOT CliffsNotes, but "they" could be. This is NOT encyclopedic. Read my lips: NOT encyclopedic. To all voters, please read the debate at What Wikipedia is not:Wikipedia is not a spoilerroom, or wikipedia is not cliff notes. strong delete as copyright infringement as explained above. I can see I could read this summary and never buy the book at all, and that is certainly not in the publisher's best interests, and they have every legal right to sue the crap out of us. I withdraw my transwikiing suggestion; this is not a study guide, it's a condensed rip! GarrettTalk 01:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * reminder to Garret and to others who share his perspective -- I just want to remind you that if you truly believe this page should be speedy deleted, that the process for doing that is as Criteria for speedy deletion, which is distinct from the process we're supposed to be using on this page. --Arcadian 02:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, indeed! I was meaning strong delete, but I don't know why I said that. Thanks for the reminder though. I wish I could say what I mean instead of just meaning what I say... :) GarrettTalk 02:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this should be speedied (at the moment), as we have no precedent for processing of non-verbatim copyvios, but I do hope that the result of this Vfd will lead to a discussion about it and clarification of the CSD so that we have a definitive answer in case this sort of thing comes up again. GarrettTalk 02:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Revise Treat it like any other article, there should be no exception.
 * Condense (greatly!) and merge with main Half-Blood Prince page, then Delete this as copyright infringement; it's far too detailed and obviously derivative for fair use to be applicable in this case. Ken 03:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we can have the ridiculous Atlas Shrugged articles, we can have this. Neutralitytalk 03:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * *secretly decides to look through those and mercilessly merge/Vfd...* GarrettTalk 10:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense the content and contain it within the article about the book proper. Then change any links to go there and delete this article, since nobody will think to go to such an article name on their own. --Michael Snow 04:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - copyvio considerations, and even if there weren't, it's not remotely encyclopedic. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly informative. The potential for copyvio should be investigated but it seems similar to many other plot summary articles on WP. I didn't realize so many wikipedia users are either lawyers or are unfamiliar with the "I am not a lawyer" caveat. zen master T 12:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is it encyclopedic? THAT is the question this Vfd was to answer. Summaries as part of an (encyclopedic) article are fine, but when the summary stands on its own is it still part of the encyclopedia ideal? GarrettTalk 12:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this VfD is asking more questions than just "is it encyclopedic?", most deleters seem to be arguing it's a copyvio. I believe the full plot summary was moved to its own article so the main article would have as few spoilers as possible and also for size considerations. In my interpretation, the size of a plot summary is likely to be in direct proportion to both the size of the book/thing being summarized and the hype surrounding a release. They key word in most definitions of the word "encyclopedia" I've seen is "comprehensive", though I am all for succinct summarization at a language level generally but in this case I think everything included is relevant. Feel free to clean it up without removing clarity yourself. zen master T 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be sarcastic. That Wikipedians are not lawyers is not a good enough reason to forestall a pending lawsuit. And Michael Snow is a lawyer. Read what Angela (who is part of the Board) has to say above. Mandel 13:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggested an investigation should be undertaken, if it is determined by someone official that the plot summary content should be removed then someone official should remove it regardless of this vote. But until then, legal considerations that don't fit within a defined area of wikipedia policy are orthogonal from a standard vote for deletion and discussion of the issues by the wikipedia community. Have Harry Potter publishers actually threatened a lawsuit? Would some consideration of the merits, rather than just the threat, of a lawsuit be undertaken prior to the removal of any content? zen master T 14:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is already being discussed above. Precedent lawsuits have been mentioned and the Board is being informed, if you care to follow. Mandel 14:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is obviously no consensus to delete this article amongst the ostensibly non lawyer wikipedia user base. If the board is going to decide are you saying this VfD discussion is unnecessary? How am I not following exactly, are you a lawyer? zen master T 15:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions are already being undertaken. And yes, if the Board intervenes then this VfD becomes unnecessary.  But until then, please stick to explaining why this article ought to be left alone instead of taunting other Wikipedians about their legal concerns. How is a chapter-by-chapter summary "more relevant" than a shorter summary? In what way is it "useful" to remain in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia? Mandel 16:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok good, I thought for a minute you were saying voting and discussion should cease here because the Board of Directors has been summoned. Anyway, isn't the burden of proof on the pro delete crowd to prove (or for the b.o.d to determine) that the article is unworthy of wikipedia since it doesn't obviously violate any wikipedia policies? The chapter by chapter summary seems to be relevant to the overall plot of what happens in a lengthy book, though regardless I fail to see how excessive summary length means we should delete it (or drastically reduce it after merging back). Putting full plot summary details in its own article for the purpose of keeping spoilers separate was a good idea. zen master T 17:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Half-Blood Prince does not contain fewer spoilers; the plot there is merely more condense. James 17:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say that is way fewer spoilers, though it does give away the big kahuna spoiler. I may be wrong but I think at one point all spoilers were moved to the full plot summary article, size was obviously a concern too. The spoilers in H. B. P. probably should be moved to the bottom of that article to keep them as separate as possible. What you call a condense summary Harry Potter fans would likely call way too condense. zen master T 18:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote to merge and condense. If Angela and Michael Snow feel that's the right choice, then that's good enough to persuade me. --Arcadian 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete per above. After reading all of the comments, this seems like the most sensible solution, particularly considering the opinions of Angela and Michael. royblumy 16:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The harry Potter series is an important phenomenon, but its importance does not revolve around a chapter-by-chapter summary of the plot of an individual book in the series.  This is fancruft and does not belong in a reputable encyclopedia. Indrian 17:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't personally like it, but in my opinion it is encyclopedic. -- DocSigma 20:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't believe there is evenan argument over taking it off temporarily. Why would someone come here and read a full outline obviously marked SPOILER if they did not want to be spoiled. I read it, and yet it doesn't make me want to NOT buy the book. Infact, I have been teased with a little info, now I MUST have more. As long as there is no copyright infringment (and it seems as though there isn't as this is not WORK FOR WORD and is pretty much fair use so why all the fuss?) Some people enjoy being spoiled. I for one would have no problem if someone wanted to do this to any book. It would only make me want to read the original even more! --Janjsalmon
 * User has 2 edits. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Putting aside the copyright infringement question, a lot of you seem to be missing a major point: Encyclopedias do not generally contain lengthy synopses of any novel. If they did, they would probably be much older than this past Saturday. tregoweth 22:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not your average encyclopaedia. It does not have the size concern. If a long synopsis is useful it should be here. If it would be more useful if condensed, then so be it. &mdash; David Remahl 01:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Condense: While I don't see this as a copyright infringement, it is longer than the length for articles regulate and should be shorten and possibly renamed.  It is not a substitute for the book itself but it is immensely helpful for those who wish to be informed on the major plot points.  It is rather a bit longer than other summaries for each book.  While I would like the other summaries lengthened, this one has not only the major plot points but some of the minor plot points as well.  It should be condensed by at least 3 page lengths especially when other books in the series which are much longer and not nearly this well expanded on.  It should be proportionate to the size of the original condensing to approximately 2-5% of the original book length and 5-10% but not to exceed 15 pages printed materials in regular Times New Roman 12pt font if not newly released.  SakuraLei 23:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User has 1 edit. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. May need cleanup, but it doesn't fit deletion tests: it is notable, it can easily be cleaned up to eliminate copyright violations, it's not orphaned, ad infinitum.   Ingoolemo   talk  02:08, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
 * Delete, and send the editors to bed without any supper. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not CliffsNotes. --Kevin Myers 04:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. People voting keep has been circumventing the question.  The argument is that this summary is "useful", but they fail to indicate exactly what it is useful for. Mandel 05:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no reason that a plot summary cannot be as long as the contributors wish to make it. The amount of interest in this book certainly justifies a longer article.  As for the copyright paranoia, I can think of few things that are less likely to be sued than a scholarly synopsis with very few quotes for an encyclopedia based in a country other than the author's.  T h e St ev e  06:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Summaries are useful - see reference books such as Oxford Companion to English Literature. And why should Wikipedia not include elements of Cliff Notes? Understanding literature is as rewarding as understanding history or engineering.--Silver149 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Understanding literature is one thing, but this article doesn't further understanding of the literature, just lists what happens. James 08:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it does more than just list, it relates book 6 to previous books in the series and the overall plot and points out where fans had assumed incorrectly about what might happen and it also notes things like semi-popular characters getting a smaller role etc. zen master T 08:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't need a super-long summary to point it out. And Oxford companions provide summaries, but not such long summaries (at least ten times the length of any in the reference book). Mandel 11:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The chapter by chapter organization seems to make it easier for the entire community to participate in the summarization process. How long should the article be in your view, 2/3rds current size, half, 1/10th, deletion = 0? Perhaps complaints about the length of an article should be discussed on its talk page rather than nominated for deletion. zen master T 11:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There's already a perfectly good summary of the right length at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as mentioned Deridolus. So "delete" is the right word. Mandel 12:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems way too short to me, that isn't a summary, not enough core context, it basically just gives away the ending. The HP phenomenon seems to be about the overall story of what happens, and what happens to the characters, rather than just the ending of each book. Also, summarizes should probably be in some proportion to the size of the book being summarized and HP books are actually quite lengthy. zen master T 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * IMHO, not more than 1,000 words. And that's erring on the lengthy side. At present the sypnosis at the main article is about 400 words. Mandel 12:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even remotely encyclopedic. This ain't Television Without Pity. --Calton | Talk 12:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found the article useful before already. --SeizureDog 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEPWhile those who have suggested that this is not encyclopedic have a strong point than those who cry "copyright violation", this entry is more of a "Cliffs Note" version of the book and in my opinion falls right along with other encyclopedic works. If anything, condense this in time so that it fits with the general "Harry Potter" article.  Definitely don't delete this.--Dapresw17:00, 22 July 2005 (EDT)
 * Condense and Merge to the most appropriate page. CheekyMonkey 21:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to the Wikibook which was just created for the purpose: Harry Potter plots. &mdash; Olathe 02:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE, obviously. This really shouldn't even be a matter of debate; I'm surprised and a bit concerned that anyone is voting "keep." I couldn't care less about copyright law, but this is just plain unencyclopedic and sets a very bad precedent. --Tothebarricades 03:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * strong keep. 1) I'd rename the article to have it conform to wikipedia title standards (full plot summary should not be capitalized). 2) I'd expand the article (or create new ones) to include indepth literary analysis of the characters, setting, plot (covered?), metaphor, style, etc. I'd use cliff's (cole's in Canada) notes as a basic template and an work towards more academic works which are literary analysises. I think it a mistake to believe that literary analysis (in this case taking the form of plot analysis) is unencyclopedic - afaik English is an academic course in most English speaking universities ;). --ShaunMacPherson 03:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless the length exceeds copyright law. --Tim Pope 08:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP 1. this is not a copyright violation by any means. 2. people obviously want to read this. i do. 3. the lesser synopsis is dreadfully uninforming. 4. a full synopsis like this is of great value to anyone either studying the book, reminding themselves of it, or looking up something (especially considering the introduction of a lot of harry-potter references into popular speech). 5. it's not actually THAT huge. --alfakim 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 19:25, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If it is too long, then condense it. --billlund 22:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it! Enochlau 13:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge / rename if necessary. Harry Potter is not merely a series of books, it has now reached critical mass and become a cultural event. --Bluejay Young 13:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all reasons stated above. --Matjlav 19:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for all reasons stated; otherwise, it could do with some improvement. H.J.Potter 20:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge to the appropriate page. Stand-alone plot summaries are not encyclopedic and do not belong in Wikipedia.  I support the book purchaser's right to use the book in any way he or she sees fit, including posting plot summaries on the internet, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it.   That's what blogs are for.  The Hokkaido Crow 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Useful, and fair use.--Prem 03:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and extend plot summary at Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Overly long, possible violation of copyrights, but if shortened and edited appropriatly it would be acceptable for the main page.
 * above vote entered by NeoChrono Ryu at 06:32 on July 25, 2005 Phil | Talk 11:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Sue
 * Delete not enzyklopedic. -guety is talking english bad 03:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and possible copyvio. --Carnildo 03:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep fair use indeed applies and the summary is a useful informational tool. Should it be merged?  I don't know.  - --TPB 17:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Fair Use guidelines absolutely do not apply in a case like this (suddenly every one here claims to be an intellectual property attorney or something without understanding the basic concepts of the law), and the article is excessive and pointless to begin with. This level of detail is highly nonnotable, unencyclopedic and crufty. DreamGuy 03:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hack-o-rama. A complete summary is NOT an encyclopedia article, really. Now, if somebody can include the larger significance (Hagrid, who the critic Kenneth Tynan has shown to be a metaphor for overweight homosexuals, trips over a stone at the beginning of chapter six, signifying the dissolution of traditional marriage in Canada), then we might keep it. Aren't there any fan sites for you people to post this much stuff? DavidH 04:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Votes made without logging in

 * Merge with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, just to be consistent with previous Harry Potter Novel Entries. (Unsigned from 65.12.173.53)
 * KEEP. Very Usefull. --User:Sabel4 (account has one contribution, on July 5)
 * Keep, Do NOT merge soon, as the entire artical is a spoiler and people looking for information on the book itself and not plot twists could eisily wind up knowing much more than they wanted if it was put on the same page as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince--RobLance // talk 06:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC) (account has no edits)
 * Stronger keep Useful, fair and i don't have time to read the book so this told me exactly what happened saving me time.... KEEP KEEP KEEP!
 * Delete this crap. (unsigned from 68.192.171.208 who also deleted a number of votes above, since restored)
 * "PLEASE KEEP" at least for a little bit. The information is wonderful and the links to everything else I wanted to re-check saved me days of work. Thank you for it, and PLEASE KEEP. Thank you.
 * Keep This is great work and very informative -- thanks to who ever did this
 * Stronger keep Please keep, it's a great resource!
 * Strong keep. Useful, fair, and fair use. --Arnthony 20:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) (account has no edits)
 * Strong keep People are already linking to it. 66.92.237.111 04:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the link touts it as a substitute for the book itself ("The whole plot is now summarized in a Wikipedia page. If you feel you simply have to know what happens in the book, you can read that, instead of buying the book.") Which is not helpful if we're defending against a charge of copyright infringement, because if the summary is an adequate substitute it's not likely to be fair use. --Michael Snow 04:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That page is part of Richard Stallman's rant against the Canadian Injunction: he's trying to persuade people not to buy the books. I see no reason why someone else's venom should dictate what articles we should or should not have on Wikipedia. So if someone campaigning against Scientology points to our article on Xenu saying "read it at Wikipedia rather than buy it from LRH", you think we should delete that article? Phil | Talk 11:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but doesn't one have to be virtually brainwashed first before you get the Xenu book from the Scientologists? If that is the case then I couldn't get buy it first with out being subjected to a process I don't want. In comparison HP:HBP is freely (as in freedom, not cost) available just about everywhere. --Colin Angus Mackay 12:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To make determinations of copyright status based on how sites other than Wikipedia chose to characterize the article in links is to forfeit control over Wikipedia to every web page author on the web.--kcswampfox
 * keep please
 * This article is similar to the detailed plot summaries for different works like movies, etc. There is no reason to treat this differently.  I vote for a Strong Keep
 * I have yet to see an article with so detailed a summary. For instance, compare to Fellowship of the Ring. Could you please point me to a summary even remotely as detailed? James 08:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tl n, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, Atlas Shrugged, The Bible, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy among others.   T h e St ev e  03:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tl n, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius' summary is a detailed analysis of the themes and topics involved, not a chronological detailing of events. Atlas Shrugged has no plot summary on Wikipedia, only character, place, theme, etc. analysis. I agree that there is probably considerably more written in Wikipedia on Atlas Shrugged than Harry Potter, but it is in-depth, not merely a recounting of events. The Bible is the most influential book ever written, and as such it receives a special status. In some instances I think the Bible articles could be trimmed down, anyway. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy summaries are miniscule in comparison to this one. The opening volume of the series is summarized by a mere 290 words, even shorter than the "short" summary at Half-Blood Prince. James 04:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you would like this article to be less summary and more analysis, but such things are generally encyclopedic? Great! I look forward to seeing your improvements.  There have been many calls for condensation in any case, but that should be discussed somewhere other than VfD.   T h e St ev e  04:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I would be completely in favor of such content. However, that content would belong in the Half-Blood Prince page, and not in a separate, full plot summary page. So this page should still be deleted. --Titoxd 05:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * delete-temporaily Considering the popularity of the book, at least give a month breathing time so others can spend the time reading the book without giving away any pertanent information.
 * I disagree with the copyright arguments. It is legal to photocopy 25% of a work and this article sumarizes the plot in much less space than 25% of the book. Furthermore, I disagree with the non-encyclopedic nature of this article arguments. I beleive that the mere fact that the article exists is an interesting social commentary in and of itself and highly academically useful. I believe that BOTH the article and the discussion should be saved indefinately. Moreover, as Wikipedia is an opt-in set up (that is people have intentionally choose to access information from the site) I don't believe it harms anyone who wishes to read the full text of the story themselves. Rather, people can exercise their own disciple and choose not to read this article. That is what the spoiler warning at the top is for. I vote KEEP and ARCHIVE Forever (and link to this discussion) SkyJamer
 * It is most certainly NOT legal to photocopy 25% of a copyrighted work that is in print. There is no hard and fast guideline, but most publishers will not allow more than 10-15% of an in-print work to be reprinted even if you were to pay them royalties; printing even that much without even asking for permission would almost certainly be seen as a copyright violation.  Copyright law, including what does and does not constitute fair use, is an extremely complex subject, and cannot be summarized by blanket statements like "you can reprint this percent without permission".  LGE
 * Kip. I zink zat eet ees vairry impeurtant to haff sumsing like zis to edd reeders. Zoo you not aggree? Ze Haff-Blot Prinz 15:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Please --Brianb


 * Very Strong keep.  This is an extensive summary, not a brief one.  It would be too too big if it was combined with the main article.  --  Jason Palpatine 05:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a record?
On a lighter note, many people have expressed a desire to delete the page because it is too long, and is currently up to 52K. However, when you add up the size of its VFD page plus its talk page, the size is now 78K. Remarkably, though, the discussion has been mostly civil, and with very little vandalism. Whenever this topic gets closed, I'd be curious to see if this has the highest legitimate vote total of any VfD ever. --Arcadian 03:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While browsing Wikipedia, I ran across Fiction in Wikipedia, which deals with the topic of extensive plot summaries, among many other things. I note that the section on plot summaries was added a couple of days ago (by someone who voted Keep here, btw), but it seems like a reasonable approach to follow. Ken 14:10, July 23, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.