Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tales of Beedle the Bard


 * 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 merge into List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series nad/or articles related to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, such as Deathly Hallows (objects). And, yes, I did read the seventh Harry Potter book. -- Kurykh  02:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

yet another article about a relatively non-notable Harry Potter object PageantUpdater 08:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep!!! - It is a significant part of Harry's search for the Deathly Hallows. It is left to Hermione Granger by Albus Dumbledore another inmportant point as it strongly links Dumbledore into the story. Also it provides evidence that the Muggle and Magical world are as alike as they are different and it is something that many children and adults can relate to from their childhoods.81.104.147.204 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -The article in question plays a large part in the seventh Harry Potter book and it essential to the plot-- SamWolken  Talk 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is truly important in the books plot. and it should be allowed its own article. This book is possibly the only in the entire series of which its contents are fully described. -- Hpfan1  Talk 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * keep - an important, in my opinion, figment of the story. Having read the last book, I feel this is sufficiently imporant enough to be kept. As a curiosity, have you read the book PageantUpdater? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * keep - Having read the book I think this article is worth keeping because of the fact that the book 'Tales of Beedle The Bard' is an important part of the storyline of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Considering it's relating to the Deathly Hallows, and without it Hermione would never have gone to the Lovegoods. With out ruining the story for those who havnt read the book, this would lead to that and it would have changed the whole storyline of the book. I think this a suficiant reason to keep this article.  &mdash;Zan orath 08:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I should have mentioned in my nomination that some of this should be merged elsewhere, but I believe it doesn't warrant its own article. And yes, I have read all seven books. PageantUpdater • talk • contribs •  08:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly can be expanded to have meaningful content, and if it doesn't get kept, it should at least be merged and redirected. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it can be expanded to have meaningful content, but that doesn't mean it is notable enough to warrant an article. PageantUpdater • talk • contribs •  09:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the nutshell of WP:NOTE: I'm sure some good sources can be found, if from the book. But you are right. Exactly right. I still say keep though, because it is important to the story. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per AD's reasoning. It is one of the more important plot devices. Recurring dreams 11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentMy initial reaction was to delete it, because frankly there is little to say about it as an item. However, the people above are right that it is part of one significant plot arc. If the article is expanded to explain the meaning of the 'deathly hallows' which is the title of the last book and which are somewhat explained in 'beedle', then it might make some sense. Sandpiper 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Deathly Hallows (objects) and list of fictional books within the Harry Potter series. List of books is basically one-line entries of books referred to in the series, where this deserves to get a mention, and I have inserted it. On consideration of how articles are forming up, the deathly hallows objects article is a sesnsible place to otherwise mention the book. I suggest this page should become a redirect to there. Sandpiper 08:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge either into the List of items, or Deathly Hallows (objects) Will (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fictional topic that has received no "significant coverage from (real world) independent sources Corpx 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects); the book's ONLY notability even within Harry Potter is in leading to the discovery of the Deathly Hallows concept. By that weak logic, Hogwarts, A History has been about ten times as "notable" (and no, I DON'T mean that we need an article for Hogwarts, A History). Propaniac 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just in case everyone has forgotten, we base articles on notability, not whether or not this book was important to the novel, or whether the article can be expanded, or because it is part of a plot arc. There is not significant real world discussion of this book, ergo there should be no Wikipedia article. Natalie 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Way too obscure, no notability outside the Harry Potter books. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has only been out for three days, that is not enough time to establish notability for any the new objects or new characters in the book.  --Phirazo 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as significant plot element in very notable book. There can therefore reasonably be expected to be sources. DGG (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect/Merge (whatever leads to a consensus) to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, per WP:FICT. I don't think there's any content here that we need there, but if there is, by all means merge it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very important in the book itself, its a major source of information regarding the hallows etc. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're just a plot device. Is there anything we can possibly say about them that isn't plot summary of Deathly Hallows? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects) for now, although content would probably be better suited for a list of books in the Harry Potter series (naming such a list would be tough, but it could be along the lines of Potions in Harry Potter and List of places in the Harry Potter books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series. I'm not sure why I didn't notice that page before.  That list could be expanded, giving (brief!) details about the more noteworthy books (such as Hogwarts, A History or The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects) and/or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Aleta 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to some appropriate composite article. This is getting annoying. Espresso Addict 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Wizarding media in Harry Potter, which would include not only books but also incorporate Harry Potter newspapers and magazines, as well as Potterwatch the radio station. Brisv e  gas  03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge contents into something else. This article will never be more than a stub. --Masamage ♫ 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Isn't cruft, but deserves its own blurb elsewhere. Auror 14:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects). The book isn't notable enough for its own article, but it is very important to the Deathly Hallows plotline. AgentPeppermint 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to relevant article (or articles). A one time item that plays a big role doesn't need an article of it's own. This Harry Potter cruft really needs to stop. RobJ1981 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Merge. -Inventm 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Deathly Hallows (objects). --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Tale Of Three Brothers is the one that is relevant to the storyline of HP7; this book is pretty irrelevant. Even then the story (the fairy tale!) is important only to set the context for the Deathly Hallows, and not important in itself. As such, it should be merged to Deathly Hallows. --soum talk 14:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Would never pass WP:N or WP:FICT. In fact, it fails WP:FICT in a miserable fashion. --Farix (Talk) 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Entirely non-notable fictional book. Marc Shepherd 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is a valuble resource to many readers of the Harry Potter series. Many readers read the books once and at most twice, and so they do not retain all the information that it contains, and most will not remember small details that were mentioned in passing in a much earlier book.  This page allows readers to refresh their memories on something that they may have forgotten.
 * Strong merge I can easily support merging this article with List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series, as per Josiah Rowe. But delete the article?  No.  As others have mentioned, this is a highly significant book in the Harry Potter universe, particularly in Book 7. --Micahbrwn 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series — we definitely don't need an article about every single little thing in the Harry Potter series, and this list is a good place to put it. Nyttend 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Extremely important and central to plot of seventh book. It most certainly should not be deleted. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Magical objects in Harry Potter or similar. The other objects bequeathed by Dumbledore don't get their own articles, including Gryffindor's Sword, which has played a significant role in two of the books and about which we know much more. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. I don't know where to, but I'm sure we can find a nice spot for this page, because it doesn't deserve its own, and only served as part of a key element of the plot, not a key element. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep If not, at least merge it somewhere. The information is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.165.59 (talk • contribs) — 24.93.165.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.