Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows


 * 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 was delete while it's about 50-50 keep delete votes, most all the keeps reaches the WP:ILIKEIT or WP:INTERESTING category while most of the delete votes have merit. Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Note: Before commenting on this discussion, please familiarize yourself with the information contained at WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While these are only essays and not binding policies, this will give you important context when deciding how to make your argument. Thank you.


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft - WP:NOT, etc, etc Will (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge This is a difficult one. It is a great reference that should be on Wikipedia somehere. The ideal would be on the Deathly Hallows page, but this is a big spoiler so having its own page makes sense. Just deleting the information is the worst option. Casaubonian 10:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Like others have said, a good reference. Plus if people don't want to know who dies, then don't click the link! Rudeboy2025 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A really good reference for all of the links. Seperates some major spoiler type information from the main article.  Also, having this list in the main article would make it quite a bit longer (in terms of screen size).  Bjewiki 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge* I, for one, was hoping this list would be made as I wanted to know without having to go back through the book and find the details.  This is also good for referencing for the purposes of Fan-fiction, Role Playing and generaly settling arguments.
 * Unsigned discounted Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This cycle is getting ridiculous. People are interpreting "cut back on the information" as "bloat the information and create sub articles".-Wafulz 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I called it.  The list is in-universe and has no apparent out-of-universe importance.  17Drew 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT if it can't be merged into the parent article. Listcruft. EyeSereneTALK 17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim and merge WP:NOT clearly applies here, but it is also useful information (yes, yes, I know that is not a valid argument in AfDs, but bear with me here).  Who dies in each Harry Potter book is definitely notable information, and the section in the article proper is a little sparse at the moment.  We don't need this comphrensive chart, but I think the main article should at least say a little more about the number of characters who died, e.g. listing the main ones or something.  Seriously, this kind of crap will get play in mainstream news sources, so notability is not in doubt -- it's just that the chart is excessive. --Jaysweet 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The main article already says who dies in the plot summary. 17Drew 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, and again I know I am using the fallacious WP:USEFUL argument here, but I really don't care about the plot of Deathly Hallows; I just care who dies ;D --Jaysweet 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — a real-world notability argument could be made, since so much of the pre-release publicity for Deathly Hallows focused on the question of who will die (see, for example, here, an article which was headlined in the print edition with the question "WHO WILL DIE?"). I don't have strong feelings on the matter myself, but I think that if defenders want the article kept they should be looking for secondary sources which discuss the question (thus indicating its importance). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How would this benefit anything? Instead of having this information and its buildup in the main article, we would just end up having it in the main article and somewhere else.-Wafulz 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if summary style guidelines were followed properly. I don't care whether this information is in the main Deathly Hallows article or on its own page, but I'm just pointing out that a real-world notability argument could be made — thus refuting the argument that the list is indiscriminate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious listcruft, but the important characters who died should be found easily in the article as that is what a lot of people will want to see. Millancad 18:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Keep. A useful list... {{unsigned|128.2.20.102}
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE --Zeno McDohl (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my previous comments here and here. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Because VOLDEMORT KILLS SNAPE! —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While a bit silly, this comment here is sort of why I think the section on character deaths in the main article should be expanded just a little bit. There are a huge number of folks who just want to know what all the Harry Potter fans will be talking about, and the answer is: Voldemort kills Snape.  (I don't even know who Snape is, but I am pretty sure if I say those three words to a HP fan who hasn't read the book they'll get really mad at me, ha ha ha)  Obviously "Voldemort kills Snape" can't go in the lead cuz it is a spoiler, but it ought to be really easy for visitors to the page to find.  Delete this silly chart, though.  --Jaysweet 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's also not true. Seriously. If you'd read the list (ie, looked at the page, the way so many people don't bother with AfDs, because they *know* what's on it), you'd know that Nagini kills Snape. So really, what it does is let people be dicks by saying things like this, and backing it up by saying 'It was on Wikipedia.' (despite the fact it isn't). --Thespian 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going to argue that, Voldemort technically did kill Snape, seeing as he set Nagini on Snape. We all generally accept that Hitler killed the Jews during WWII, but he didn't necessarily raise his own hand. I don't mean to Godwin the AfD, I'm just saying. Regardless, there is no real need for this list. But honestly, your tone makes me think you're being a bit of a dick, so calm down, it really is just an AfD. I think Malber was kidding. Innappropriate, but kidding nonetheless.Vaguely 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my reply was to JaySweet, not to Malber. And my point was actually that people here and in other AfDs aren't actually reading the pages, they're basing their 'votes' on impressions of the page, personal agendas ('I don't like lists') etc. This was even information on the page itself; but the tangent that Jaysweet went off on proved my main point; people aren't reading AfDs, and if you're not at least spending the time to fully read the page, you're actually damaging Wikipedia by participating in AfDs. --Thespian 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my mistake here sort of proves the point of why this chart is completely over-the-top. I did in fact read through the chart before commenting, but since I am not a Harry Potter fan, I am sorry, but I apparently failed to memorize every bit of important information.
 * However, the fact that Snape is killed, as I am gathering, is a very important point because it makes Harry Potter the only whatsitcalled. Or whatever.  My point is that this information is not easily accessible either in the main article (unless you read the whole many-paragraph plot summary in very great detail) or in this chart (unless you are a HP fan capable of sifting the notable deaths from the non-notable deaths in a gigantic comprehensive chart, which I wasn't, even though I did read the chart).
 * The chart is a pile of obscure information, with a little bit of notable info mixed in. What I advocate is to trim it back to a few sentences of prose that capture the notable information in this chart, and merge it with the main page.  I am not an HP fan so I am not 100% certain if I have the notable information correct, but what I am gathering is:  A huge number of people died, particularly in the Battle of Thingamajig; some dude named Snape was killed by one of Voldemort's minions, meaning Harry Potter is now like some kind of last surviving Jedi or some crap like that; and Voldemort was finally defeated by getting a nasty spell reflected back on him or something.  Oh yeah, and Potter himself lives.  Are there other notable deaths (from an encyclopedic standpoint) besides that? --Jaysweet 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft. Anyone really important will be mentioned in the plot summary of the main article, everyone else will be mentioned as being dead in their own article. &spades;P M C&spades; 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC) &spades;P M C&spades; 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is deleted, I think Deaths in Harry Potter—a list that comprises all the books, including a Deathly Hallows section that overlaps with, without being identical to, this list—should be deleted as well. Not surprisingly, a spate of partially or entirely redundant articles on the HP universe seem to have been created in the last few days. That many of them are catalogued categorized poorly, if at all, makes them hard to find. Deor 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back Come on this is silly. A few hours ago, this table was on the main HP page. Why has a new article been created. Speedy delete and merge back . Why are we wasting time on something so pathetic? If there were an article named Deaths in Harry Potter it could be merged to that- but not a separate article! Dewarw 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have just noticed that there is an article called Deaths in harry potter. Therefore, Speedy Delete.' This is a duplicate page, what are we waiting for!!!Dewarw 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and speedy merge As above. Wrawed 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the main deaths page. There's nothing I can add that hasn't already been said. Natalie 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge either to the Deaths in Harry Potter list as described above, or back to the main book article, which currently has a section about deaths which is about 2 lines long. This table should be in that section, or if not, the contents of the table should be evaluated in that section as prose to add more context. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge, it absolutely belongs in the main article. However, it keeps getting deleted and re-added, so perhaps a cooling period of a few days would be good before this is done.Lilac Soul 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Salting the earth is a better idea than a cooling down period. Natalie 21:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge, either back into the main Deathly Hallows article and/or into Deaths in Harry Potter. With those two pages existing already this page is very redundant. Mazca 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into Deaths in Harry Potter. There's no reason for this book to have its own list, especially if the more notable deaths are already mentioned in the main Deathly Hallows article. Duckyass 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: The only reason this list is here is because people keep removing it from the Deathly Hallows article. If people didn't keep deleting it then there would be no need for it. The bottom line is that it is important and encyclopæedic and so belongs somewhere on Wikipedia.  Valley 2 city  21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP. Very useful and timely list. and other way more inane lists survive here. J. Van Meter 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And judging by your edit summary, WP:JUSTAVOTE.  17Drew 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry for not being more specific about the reason for my vote/opinion. wikipedia is THE place that people shop for this exact type of information. it's clear that many contributors have spent time doing the research to create this list, which, i believe is unique to wikipedia. this is useful information to anyone doing any research on the harry potter series; and having it here as it's own article keeps the size of the deathly hallows article more managable. several other useful lists exist regarding the harry potter series and it seems to me that there's not a substantive reason to delete this one. J. Van Meter 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If people are coming here for indiscriminate collections of information, then simply put, they're at the wrong place. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, so any information that has no impact on the real world does not belong here, no matter how many people are looking for it.  Your other comments are simply variations of WP:EFFORT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  People researching minor in-universe details about a fictional universe should be at a fansite, and the solution to having other inappropriate lists on Wikipedia is to delete them, not to make more.  17Drew 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * -well then it seems to me you've got hundreds of articles on the simpsons, south park, magic the gathering, family guy, pokemon, the sopranos, yu gi oh, dungeons and dragons, dune, star trek, star wars, bugs bunny, nancy drew and the hardy boys that should all be immediately deleted. quick -- go get 'em - they're destroying wikipedia as we know it.J. Van Meter 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stay on-topic. This is not about other in-universe articles.  It's about this article, and your veering from the point only suggests that this article is inappropriate for inclusion.  17Drew 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * --no: I think if you're going to make sweeping statements about "in-universe articles", you can't single out just one to attack. and, for the record, there's really nothing "indiscriminate" about an examination of the exceptionally large number of deaths occuring in a book whose sales have broken all records and whose plot and ending were affected, according to the author, by the events of 9/11. J. Van Meter 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [outdent] I'm not attacking just one.  I've supported the deletion of other articles or tagged them with in-universe on the same basis.  And that information is pertinent to the Harry Potter article.  This article, however, has nothing about sales records and shouldn't.  Because Voldemort killing an unknown foreign witch has no real world importance, no matter how many copies the book sells.  17Drew 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dicounted Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge back into the HPATDH articles or Deaths in Harry Potter. Book 7 is particularly notable in that it is a bloodbath compared to the other 6 and that needs to be communicated somehow. Spoilers should have no bearing on content decisions such as this. Savidan 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't that fact be communicated with a simple sentence in the main article stating that the death count in this book is much higher than previous books? A completely cruft-tastic article is not the only way to convey that information. Natalie 21:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge This could easily be merged with the main article on the book. As the book is out, it no longer counts as a spoiler. This is, however, very useful encyclopedic information about the book.
 * This is exactly my position.. The main article needs a little bit more about it because, let's face it, the death of Harry Potter characters is damn notable.  But it doesn't need this chart.  That is just way over the top.  --Jaysweet 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge Who keeps making these? This is like the fourth one, it's getting ridiculous. This was previously accepted to be on the main page, and can be useful as trivia. There is no need for a second page to be created just as a list of those who died in the novel, but it does little harm on the front page. When separated, this list becomes trivial and redundant. Reputation 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus to have it on the book's article, mainly because as you pointed out, it's trivia. 17Drew 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. It was acceptable on the book's main article until someone decided it was noteworthy enough to deserve its own article. Afterward, it was nominated for deletion. Reputation 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. WP:NOT.  And it spoiled the book for me :(  Giggy  UCP 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as I said in the other similar afd Harry Potter list article, until more info is provided this should be only mentionned in the respective episode articles in which the deaths occured.--JForget 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps such articles should be considered temporarily relevant, if not in keeping with standards. In six months, no one will care. For now, it seems to have some relevance. People are interested in this information, at least for the time being. No, it does not merit being a permanent addition to Wikipedia. However, people come here for information that is current and dynamic. Maybe a "Spoilers" link concept should be implemented for such info and broken out from the main article. After a certain grace period, these sub-articles are either deleted or merged back into main.-Michael
 * There is no "grace period", and notability is not temporary. 17Drew 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. That fictional characters "Colin Creevey" or "Ted Tonks" died in a work fo fiction has no relevance to anything. Note the important deaths in the article's plot section. In prose. ' 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and forget. Significant deaths will already appear in the timeline article and, in context, in the plot summary of the article on the seventh book.     This material may be undeleted for the purpose of transferring to a fan wiki under the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. No other site has a comprehensive and easily accessible list. It is useful and relevant. It would take up too much space if it were all incorporated into prose. It is silly to suggest that since it is in-universe, it should be removed. There are many in-universe articles for other works of fiction, and Harry Potter is arguably the #1 most famous work of fiction today. This page would be visited by many. Supertigerman 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The solution to having inappropriate in-universe articles is not to go make more of them. 17Drew 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. The fates of this article and Deaths in Harry Potter, which is also the subject of a current AfD, would seem to be inextricably intertwined. Both were created in the past couple of days, and might be be a good idea for the same admin to deal with both articles, so that (1) similar articles are dealt with in a consistent fashion and (2) if the consensus is to merge one to the other, the other will still exist. Deor 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not quite the slam dunk that most of the other listcruft is out here, but close enough. Montco 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable listcruft. Marc Shepherd 01:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge For heaven's sake, people. It's kind of cool, people clearly put work into it, obviously a few others will enjoy reading it, it hardly takes up that much memory on the wikipedia server... why do you have to go all OCD and delete stuff like this? --Hermitage 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to take a look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Specifically the sections It's interesting, People put a lot of work into it, I like it, and It doesn't do any harm.  17Drew 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'KEEP!' I think this is so cool, and it's important to those who are researching Harry Potter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm415 (talk • contribs) 02:38, July 24, 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussion. You'd have seen that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to have an article. 17Drew 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT -- Jelly Soup 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge. I think all deaths in the Harry Potter books should be in one place and then identifying which death happened in which volume. Sid 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, merging information back to the Deathly Hallows page. This is getting ridiculous. Espresso Addict 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion To prevent some unfortunate person from accidentally stumbling onto this page and ruining the book for him/her maybe have a prepage that warns that this page contains spoilers.
 * To be completely honest, I hate the fact that Wikipedia even has spoiler warnings on it. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia and I feel that spoiler warnings in and of themselves are too fannish. As such, if a fan is too much of an idiot to realize that there are spoilers on Wikipedia, then they shouldn't be browsing the internet to begin with. Vaguely 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable, the more critical deaths should be in the main article.Marlith 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * definitely keep this list, this is the only place on the internet where i could find a hard list because i was trying to remember everyone who had died as I have already finished the book. It is a matter of fact who dies and therefore has no reason to be deleted. If people do not want the plot to be ruined for them, then they shouldn't be reading a synopsis of the entire book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.237.4 (talk) 05:11, July 24, 2007 (UTC)
 * Not every matter of fact belongs on Wikipedia. See WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING.  17Drew 05:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft. I have a feeling it is going to be a long time before these little fandom things stop popping up on an hourly basis. Vaguely 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of the deaths are not stated in the plot summaries, and those which are stated in the plot summaries have to be ferreted for through much other text. Anthony Appleyard 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If a significant death is omitted from the plot summary, edit the plot summary to include it. If it isn't significant, it shouldn't be in the article. --Tony Sidaway 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability oftern is temporary. Very many things have happened which at the time were very significant and everybody's concern or talk, but now they are old footnotes in history. Anthony Appleyard 06:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, notability is not temporary. Please read Notability.  Specifically the section titled "Notability".  17Drew 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The plot summary in the book's own page is enough; this is just fanwankery. (Note: I'm a Potter fan myself.) If you want to know that badly who dies, you can read the book itself, or there are plenty of places online to find out; Wikipedia is not the place. Roccondil 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everything above. • 97198  talk  07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons above. Wikipedian06 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: if you do not wish to read spoilers, dont read the page. simple. Although it might be a little too detailed for encyclopedic standards, but never the less, imporant. NeoDeGenero`
 * Delete and DO NOT REMERGE into the Deathly Hallows article. No sooner do we get this in-universe trivia out of one article than someone puts it somewhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck' (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. This is an important part of the book.  Not all of the deaths can be woven into the Plot synopsis.  That's what this list is for.
 * Keep. As I was reading the book, I was wondering if somebody was keeping a list of everybody who died in it... there's enough that you need a scorecard to keep track of them all. *Dan T.* 10:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful in the context of the main article; but a sensible editorial call to make it into a separate subpage.  Reasonable and not out of proportion, in the context of the rest of our Harry Potter coverage.  Jheald 10:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The list should be merged into the article in the form of a side table. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Valuable information that shpuld not be deleted.--Veracity-or-mendacity 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

God damm keep this page. it is obvious that a lot of people want this info in so if they keep deleting it from the main page then this is what happens. Now leave this alone and understand that other people have a right to see it. Rant over, Delighted eyes 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the point of Wikipedia, which you should know. I would love to have an article about my left big toe, but I am certainly not going to put up an article about it, not even if all my friends wanted me too, because it doesn't fall within Wikipedia standards. Merge this article with the Death Hallows page and be done with it. It does NOT warrant its own page, it is simply listcruft. Vaguely 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge. This is a list for the sake of a list. Brianga 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Atlant 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This information is already included in the Harry Potter Timelime article. I do not see the need for a book specific article (especially as the main article covers the important death information anyway)62.134.226.55 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've read the book and I came looking for a list of all those who died because there are so many. -- Trödel 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- or at least merge. I agree it's a good list for researchers' purposes.--68.251.145.16 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge. Keep the lists in Deaths in Harry Potter, don't branch unnecessary individual lists for each book.  •  Maurog   •  14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would really like if everyone would read WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:USEFUL, and WP:ILIKEIT. I see people making all three of those fallacious arguments just in the last five or six "votes."  (Granted, my endorsement for merge is a little bit based on usefulness, but I'm at least keeping in mind that it cannot be my sole criterion) --Jaysweet 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a highly useful list for any fan of the book, whether they are interested in analysis or merely in keeping parts of the plot straight in their head. So I say, KEEP! Rachelos23 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion before commenting. WP:USEFUL is not a reason. 17Drew 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, merge to main HP7 article later - This is a significant and sensitive bit of information. Since the book has just been released the information shouldn't be listed at the main article since anyone can very easily stumble upon it and ruin the story for themselves. Normally this wouldn't be an issue, but since the list of deaths is large I think it warrants its own article for now. After a few weeks I think it'd be fine to merge to the HP7 article. - Throw 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to protect people from spoilers. If they don't want to read spoilers they shouldn't be reading the article. Natalie 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not our job to protect people from spoilers then why does Wikipedia have spoiler tags? - Throw 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the question. All the HP plot summaries are spoilers.  It's about whether this list of deaths and details is needed at all.--WPaulB 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's necessary since the list of deaths is so large. One or two wouldn't matter; the death of Albus Dumbledore in book 6 would've have warranted its own article, but this is a list the lenght of most peoples' arm. - Throw 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which it isn't, because the deaths can be dealt with in the main article without creating a page for a list of everything that happened in DH. I feel like we should get a stick and beat off the Harry Potter fans, eh? Vaguely 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. - Throw 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and Merge - If another page already exists where the other book deaths are written, then this listcruft can be added to at least make one listcruft rather than many. I am a Harry Potter fan but nothing says that Wikipedia has to be the authoritative source for more detail-oriented fan groups.  There's an entire list of people named and unnamed that died in this book, most of them because Voldemort killed them or made other people do it - casualty of evil and war, and I see no reason why we should honour fictional ones more than real people in war.  The only notable ones are the ones that moved the story along - Pettigrew, who allowed escape, Snape whose death revealed the truth of many things to Harry, Potter himself and then Voldemort.  Those are easily reportable in the main book's plot.  This is an encyclopedia, but even an encyclopedia doesn't include all the possible listcruft - they provide main points, examples, or neat little condensed tables.  These are not repeated on new pages, it's done once and referenced.--WPaulB 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This Afd is completely stupid! This list was on the main Deathly hallows page and then moved. instead of this ridiculus afd, someone should have simply put the material back where it belongs. If this page is deleted, the info will re created either on this article, or on a differnet one. Why don't we do this now, and get this pathetic Afd out of the way! Dewarw 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Keep* This article is extremely useful and should most definately be saved. - Mike, Harry Potter fan and reader.
 * Please read the discussion before commenting. WP:USEFUL is not a reason. 17Drew 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should go back and read WP:USEFUL again. To quote:
 * In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful."
 * In particular, usefulness on its own is not a criterion for inclusion; but usefulness in the context of a topic that Wikipedia already covers is such a criterion. Note also WP:LISTCRUFT,
 * In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The Oz Books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles&mdash;University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively&mdash;and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.
 * What people are telling you is that this list is a valuable addition to WP's encylopedic coverage in this area. This is not just a random list (the main target of WP:USEFUL), it is a reasonable and proportionate addition to WP's HP coverage.  In that context, the fact that a wide range of people are telling you that this is useful, and testifying personally to that relevenace, is 100% on topic.  WP:USEFUL in no way excludes such testimony; in fact it encourages it.  Jheald 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with votes that only say it is useful. If you check my vote for "trim and merge," you'll note that I did acknowledge that part of my reason for retaining a "List of deaths" section is that this information is useful.  But that can't be the only criterion.  In this case, I feel that the deaths of some of the characters are notable in an encyclopedic sense, and that it is also useful to have those in an easily accessible location.  But I don't feel that all of the deaths are notable, and while they may still be useful to have in a list, their lack of general notability (outside of HP fans) means, in my mind, that this chart is way over the top.  If people want to say it is useful that is fine, but they should say more than just that. --Jaysweet 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but IMO it's more useful (and encyclopedic) to have a comprehensive list of all the identified deaths, than a selective list of just the "useful" ones (as decided by who?) Jheald 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge back into the main bok article from whence it came. Man, I'll be glad when Pottermania runs its course. Realkyhick 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge - --SkyWalker 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons above. Wikipedian06 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; WP:NOT and not a notable enough topic for a seperate article. If this isn't deleted it sets a bad precedent for hundreds, possibly thousands, of similar pointless lists. Masaruemoto 19:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see no reason for the deletion of this page as it is useful to clarify who killed whom and when and how. It should not make any difference to the enjoyment of the book which comes from reading the story. If the story line is so poor that revelations about the outcome make reading it unnecessary then then book is not worth reading. Many classics are read and re read even though the reader knows the plot the characters and even word for word what is on each page. Pleasure is still gained from reading the book. Keep the page. 81.148.160.130 (talk • contribs). — 81.148.160.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a good sub article for the actual book.  Moving this information into the main article may take up too much space.  In my opinion, this list falls into a situation when information needs to be split out of an article. (WP:SIZE)  Such a situation exists here.  In addition, I do feel as if it is notable enough to be mentioned. Chupper 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is clearly named, even in the URL. Once you are on the page it is obvious what it is about.  You still have to make an effort to read all the deaths.  At any point, someone who travels to this page can make an effort to not read it and not be spoiled.  This is great information for those of us who have read the book and want to quickly reference who died and how.Darthrazorback 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A handy reference to the world's greatest-selling book. Most definitely can be used as a comprehensive link-to from HBP-related articles referencing deaths. Auror 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find the Bible is still shifting well in excess of 20 million copies every year; but other than that you make a good point. Jheald 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merely attempting to satisfy the notability policy fiends' bloodlust. Auror 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge or Keep - I've found pratical use for this list several times while discussing the novel, the list should be included somewhere either here or in the original article. I would prefer the list be included within the article, but if it needs to be a seperate page for space or layout reasons that's acceptable. -Kode 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Although this is not an article in itself, it most definitely is useful information about the plot. Also, one of the main focuses of the pre-release was who will live or die. If someone who hadn't read the book wanted to know about deaths, this would be a perfect resource. However, since this is all it is, it should be merged into either Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Deaths in Harry Potter (if it isn't deleted). Laptopdude 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-- people who wish to delete have said it all already. It reminds me of a trivia list, and this stuff can be integrated into the plot summary. CarlosTheDwarf 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this listcruft. What is this list for? Completely useless. -- Ekjon Lok 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge I think for the time being it can be kept and then possibly merged. All of the deaths are a mjor part of the story this time soo they should stay. Csloomis
 * Keep Great list, very useful reference which I just used. If you don't understand the importance of this list, please don't vote. It's not for you. MaxWilder 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just reread the AfD guide, and there doesn't seem to be any valid arguments to keep... By the general guidelines, this article seems to be too much detail for an Encyclopedic entry. Sad that something that is useful, notable, verifiable, and such does not qualify it for keeping. I love Wikipedia for its usefulness and detail, not its brevity and Encyclopedic restrictions. I say, the more information the better, as long as it is well organized and cited. MaxWilder 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Not For You. - --Thespian 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Good list, interesting. Chris H 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, do not merge. The purpose of this list is to list this information without the readers having to ferret through other text. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's accessible by going to Deaths in Harry Potter and clicking the appropriate section in the contents. A separate list saves exactly one click for the user.  •  Maurog   •  05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge per WP:NOT. Douglasr007 08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge This stuff is NOT trivia to Harry Potter fans, and not everyone who is a fan has had a chance to read Book 7 yet. Merge it maybe in a year, when the fan sites have had a chance to reproduce it. I like that Wikipedia does include spoiler warnings, so that those who want to be surprised can still be surprised, and those who want to find out everything can have that chance. Userafw 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — Userafw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, as a separate page. If we put it back to being a section of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, likeliest someone will delete it, and someone will restore it, repeated indefinitely, and this table would come and go repeatedly like owls in the Hogwarts owlery, and people arguing about this would get wordy and then abusive, etc etc. Anthony Appleyard 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - having this separate improves the quality of the main article Percy Snoodle 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The major issue, based on reading previous comments, is whether Wikipedia will forever be a secondary source, and whether analysis of contents is itself valuable content. The seventh book of the Potter Cycle is a major event.  The deaths of characters is very important to the story line and of great interest to readers.  That such a list may not appear elsewhere is in no small way due to the fact that it appears in Wikipedia.  Why would there be other lists created when this is available ?  If Wikipedia is a signifcant source for many people, lack of secondary references can no longer be a valid justification for deletion.  Secondly, this compilation is a valuable summary, that does not fit into a narative summary as an entire list.  The main article provides a sequence of the book, plus events around its release.  Tables such as this belong on separate pages, as analysis of other content.  It may be approprite to merge with the "Deaths in Harry Potter" page, but there is no reference in the main article to this other page.  Changing the reference to that page would not improve Wikipedia. prwiding 13:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — Prwiding (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * We don't want to be more than a secondary source. Actually, we don't even want to be a secondary source at all.  According to Verifiability, an article should not exist unless there are secondary sources about it; since we're using secondary sources to write articles, that makes us (and most encyclopedias) tertiary sources.  17Drew 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fancruft. Fancruft. Fancruft. --Guess Who 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is complete trash. These characters' deaths should be mentioned in the plot summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; it definitely does NOT merit its own article as it is simply a list, and Wikipedia is NOT a bunch of lists, especially meaningless lists such as this. Titanium Dragon 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article list has no real world context. Fails per usual WP:PLOT and WP:IINFO reasons. UnfriendlyFire 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep information. I was actually asked the specific question of exactly who dies, and came here to check it. Only one article about deaths in HP is needed, so at least one merge is needed, there is an Afd on the other article about deaths in the series mentioned above also. The information could perfectly well also be re-merged into the Deathly Hallows article whence it came, and where it fairly obviously belongs. Sandpiper 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having checked the other Afd for HP death lists, I saw that someone suggested merging that list with Chronology of the Harry Potter series, where it all already exists. Very sensible. This article should be deleted or turned into a redirect. The information here should be reinserted into 'deathly Hallows' article whence it came. Now two people have asked me specifically who dies in the book. Not other plot details, just who dies. The advertising campaign made quite a point of it. Sandpiper 20:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Deaths in Harry Potter. It's already been merged into the article.  --musicpvm 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable. One of the best selling books of all time. Covered in numerable articles.  Of major world interest. MightyAtom 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Frag to MightAtom and others, yes the book is notable, but that does not make everything in the book notable. The notable bits of the list could easily be tucked into the main article. We shouldn't separate spoilers from the main article in detriment to the article (and anyway, it says who dies in the plot summary, thus this is incredibly redundant with the Battle of Hogwarts article). David Fuchs( talk ) 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: basically all I can see for 'keep' votes is " WP:EFFORT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.", as someone said above. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and in-universe info with no important outside the work should be sorely wanting in our eyes. David Fuchs( talk ) 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. You wouldn't have a list of characters who live in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, so why emphasize the deaths? The information can be contained in the plot summary, and it does not serve as a table of contents.  Especially if the Deaths in Harry Potter article exists.  Olin 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Two years ago, we did a very nice job of moving this crap to WikiBooks. Is there a good reason we can't do it again this time? Phil Sandifer 20:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment For that matter, is there a Harry Potter Wiki that this information could be sent to? -- Jelly Soup 10:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original research for which there are not enough reliable sources independent of the book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to verify the List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows material. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very stupid argument for deletion. Phil Sandifer 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plain and simple, people have been reading these novels for 10 years. The should be no site that contains this type of material for ANY book.  It is obvious that someone put this here to be mean.  People have been chomping at the bit to ruin a good book for millions of people.  DELETE this article.  This is copywrited material that they are messing with and no one asked them to do this.  It's absolutely dispicable.69.53.203.123 19:16, 27 July 2007 (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.