Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophecy (Harry Potter)


 * 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 Redirect. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Prophecy (Harry Potter)
Everything on this page is already at Sybill Trelawney and this seems unlikely to expand to anything else of value. Also, no one would ever type in such a title, imho. Delete. H e rmione1980 00:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Merge content with another Harry Potter article as appropriate. Pintele Yid 01:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as noted above. Matt Yeager 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything of value in this page already exists in Sybill Trelawney. There's nothing to merge. H e rmione1980 01:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything of use is already in Sybill Trelawney and the rest is speculation as to what is in the final book. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hermione1980 is a model editor. She's already ensured that: 1) this content already exists elsewhere, and 2) there's already been talk page discussion about this, and it was agreed that this page is now redundant and unneccessary.  Normally I would boldly speedy redirect this, but she wants other editors to review the article, and a redirect makes things slightly less convenient for them.  My opinion is that she's already gotten consensus and could delete (or redirect) this at will.  I favor a redirect, even if it's not useful, simply for the sake of it being reversable and reviewable by anyone, not just admins.  However, if we're going to follow traditional Afd practice, we should wait 5 days and then delete this.  Friday (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 *  traditional Afd practice  I see what you did there. ;D - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in the interest of reducing sycophancy slightly, perhaps I should point out that as far as I can see, it was my suggestion that this page should be merged, and my postings on three talk pages inviting comment. The only response so far was Hermione's proposal for deletion. While I do not disagree, that is not exactly a considered consensus and I suspect the absence of disagreement might have at least as much to do with no one noticing as anything else. However, i made the suggestion because while I thought one article discussing the prophecy was sensible, two was merely a confusion. If no one had commented after a while, I intended to turn it into a redirect and see what happened. I do doubt that the particular title is likely to be typed in, but someone searching for information on the prophecy (an important plot point, for anyone unfamiliar), might find it as a search result. Redirect, but support any consensus other than keep Sandpiper 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Friday. Even if the redirect isn't useful for searching, it's useful to discourage recreation and redirect anyone who was previously working on this article to the proper place. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as per A Man in Black and Friday. Andreww 03:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out a couple of reasons that the redirect is useful. Anyone that sees the value of such redirects may be interested in an idea that would let any deletion (or undeletion) be handled this way: the "Pure wiki deletion system".  See WP:PURE for details.  (Couldn't resist the plug, sorry.)  Friday (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirect might be useful, but who's actually going to look for "Prophesy (Harry Potter)" over "Prophecy" or "Harry Potter"? my thoughts... -- WB 06:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To quote Jean-Luc Picard, Make it so!. Eh, Redirect. --Agamemnon2 08:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per everyone. Unless we can prevail upon Wikipedians to become sane and only cover factual subjects in this kind of detail?  No, thought not. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's already at Sybill Trelawney a redirect is probably the best idea, to show context. Merging and redirecting to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix would also be valid, but might bury the information too much. Make sure there's a incoming link from the Prophecy disambiguation to justify the qualifier. - Mgm|(talk) 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with Hermione that this is a particularly poor redirect. I'd vote to delete. If there is an attempt to recreate a new page, it can be judged then on its merits; there is nothing to stop us from making it a redirect then, should such a need arise. I don't see that there is anything in the history logs worth preserving that is not already in Trelawney, so it seems to me that deleting the page is the wisest option. Regards encephalon  23:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I wrote the majority of content on this page. It was really just to edit the content it used to have as it wasn't really that great. As already said the content's already somewhere else, and the title of the page is poor, so frankly I don't really care if it gets deleted. -Dullaware 23:57, 5 November 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.