Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince


 * 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 - Crazy Rouge ian talk/email 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
WP is not a crystal ball. This article is not encyclopedic.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obsolete crystal-balling, belongs on a fansite or something. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom -- Alias Flood 17:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is pure speculation, which is not allowed, and the book has already been released for like a year! (11987 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete as per nom. - Tapir Terrific 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Not a crystal ball, speculation  Funky Monkey    (talk)   19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - How many times does this need to go up for AfD? -- 9  cds (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that it only managed to survive those 3 AFDs because it was first nominated around the time of the release of the book, and supoort had come because of all the hype. The subsequent AFDs passed because most people cited the fact that the first AFD resulted in keep. However, it's been nearly a year since it was last nominated, and I don't feel that the precedence factor should hold true.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the dates - it was last nominated around 2 months ago :) -- 9  cds (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...with most people calling for a merge or a delete, none of which were carried out.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the person who closed that last debate was someone on the Harry Potter wikiproject, and it should have been closed as "no consensus", not "not delete because the obvious consensus is not to delete". So this AfD is indeed valid. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And i would like to add that the book has already been released, so the whole page is POINTLESS. (11987 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete, outdated and doesn't even appear to have anything worth merging. HumbleGod 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Smerge about 5% of this to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were deleted, but there's a bit of additional (verified) content about the leaks and such that might be of interest in the article on the book. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom--Nick Y. 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The info about the leaks already exists in the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article, which leaves nothing else worth merging. Bluerain (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hit bull, win steak. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of this is not notable speculation. My reasoning is that if a bit of speculation is still notable, someone will independently put it in the main article. Grand  master  ka  03:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete anything worth noting should go in the main article. Eluchil404 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like it was said, obsolete crystalballing. —   20:39, 9 July 2006 (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.