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

Discussion
I was thrilled to find the chapter by chapter review of book 6, then disgusted to read some of the reasons this summary should be deleted. First of all, the C by C summary is NOT a repeat of other material. One is a review, no matter how detailed, of the book as a whole. The other contains specific chapter by chapter summaries. There is nothing wrong with either. Summaries are not copyright infringement as long as they are not re-printing the book word for word, or for sale. I could be 'technically' mistaken, but how far do we want to stretch this? This is also the ONLY site I have found that has actually TOLD me something. All the other sites I have looked at are either dated, links to advertising, or full of false promises...revealing nothing except a 'pre'release review that of course was incomplete. I also don't see what the big deal is to keep the plot of this book (or any other) hidden. Not EVERYONE is going to read the book! I'm certainly not going to sit down and turn 600+ pages in a day just to hear what happens. Why should I be shut out because there's a few people out there who want to be control freaks and tell the rest of the world...'you can't read this...go buy the book'. Well, if the summary here is interesting enough...I might. I realy don't understand these few people who think they're better than everyone else in the world and feel the need to dictate their beliefs and force them upon the rest of us. GET A LIFE. Yes, I'll print out the summary before some holier-than-thou do-gooder removes it from my sight...I might be harmed or, heaven forbid, be breaking some law. Keep the chapter by chapter summary up. It's fantastic and thanks to whoever contributed to it! (posted by User:63.77.247.130, July 20, 2005.)
 * The point of the VfD on the chapter by chapter summary is that some feel it's an intellectual property rights violation. (I happen to feel it should have been submitted as such, not on VfD, but that's water under the bridge.) It's obviously slavishly derivative of the source, and Ms. Rowling is known to be litigous. If she should discover this plot outline and decide to sue Wikipedia, I doubt that the project has the funds required to mount a successful defense.
 * That said, I personally don't feel that this material is encyclopedic. All it does is tell people the plot, and I would never expect to find that level of detail about a book in an encyclopedia. Ken 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * But you would be pleasantly surprised if you did, wouldn't you? &mdash; David Remahl 06:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, actually. It would interfere with what I consider the primary purpose of an encyclopedia, to serve as a basic general reference work for human knowledge. I don't consider the plot of a novel to be encyclopedic on it's own, and the more non-encyclopedic articles there are in an encyclopedia, the harder it becomes to find the particular information that I'm consulting the encyclopedia for. In an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, an article about the Harry Potter phenomenon is a given. Once it grows enough, articles analysing and discussing the individual books (with brief plot summaries), main characters, settings, and themes are reasonable. A plot summary article that's 5% the size of the book it summarizes is just non-encyclopedic. Not to mention a likely violation of copyright, if the litigous Ms. Rowling chooses to press the matter. Ken 03:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * You must remember that in no way is Wikipedia simply an encyclopedia. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 19:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

How is the chapter by chapter summary an "intellectual property rights violation"? I am surprised a random wikipedia user cares so much about the completely undefined phrase of "intellectual property", are you a lawyer? Books are copyrighted, how does the summary violate copyright law? A one paragraph summary per twenty pages (the book is 600 pages long right?) is actually rather succinct in my interpretation. zen master T 07:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't actually much care about intelectual property or its rights, but I do care about Wikipedia and people who actually own intellectual property are very protective of it, to the point of suing at even a hint of violation. I'd much rather err on the side of caution and keep Wikipedia out of the courts. James 07:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you misintepreted my question, you say you don't care about intellectual property or "its rights" but my question is precisely asking exactly what rights are those? I am against the claim by the publisher's canadian lawyers that argued there is "no human right to read", how crazy is that? Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know under the law there is actually no concept of "intellectual property right", that phrase is a combination of many things like patents and trade secrets but as far as a book is concerned only copyright law is applicable, right? I am all for keeping Wikipedia out of the courts but some analysis of the merits of a possible case should be performed, shouldn't it? zen master T 08:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see what the Canadian controversy has to do with Wikipedia. This page is a violation for completely different reasons than selling the book when it wasn't supposed to be. And there is no human right to read what is copyrighted. The owner can say who can and who can't read it. Irrigardless of the dispute at hand, a copyright owner has complete control of the distribution and availability of a copyrighted work for the duration of the copyright, and that is the copyright owner's intellectual property right. James 08:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * In canada the people paid for their copy of the book in a bookstore, the publisher should blame the bookstore. Also, I think you misunderstand copyright law (IANAL however), as I understand it copyright law does not regulate how a book can be used/read, it only applies if the work is subsequently copied (or derivative works are made) which is completely unapplicable in the canadian case where 15 bookstore patrons just happened to be able to buy the book early. zen master T 08:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As it says at Copyright, a copyright gives the holder the exclusive right to "produce copies of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)". The bookstore infringed on that right when they sold the book without her permission, and the only way to remedy the infringement would be for the buyer to return the book. Simply because the buyer did nothing illegal does not mean they have a right to read or keep the book. An analogy would be if a computer company sold someone a copy of Windows XP, but the license was not actually legit. The buyer did nothing wrong, but has no legal standing to continue to use the software. James 08:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * How does bookstore infringement lead to bookstore customer not being able to read something? Asking for or even ordering the book be returned is very different from ordering that a book not be read. How would you punish such a customer if they actually did read it? The restrictions you mentioned with proprietary computer software are actually not imposed using copy right law, with tangible books you can borrow a friend's book or donate them to a library (as long as you aren't making a copy) but with most proprietary computer software for some reason the "license" is not transferable, and the important point, I repeat, is this restriction is not imposed using copyright law but by EULAs and other agreements. Last time I checked book purchases do not require EULAs. zen master T 08:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It actually is comparable to EULAs, because the legal protection behind the EULA is the copyright. An EULA wouldn't have any force if the person giving it out were not the copyright holder of the software. And there IS is essence an EULA for every book: the doctrines of Fair Use and education exceptions to copying. You agree to abide by all of that when you buy the book. I don't know that the customer could really be punished for reading it, but I don't think it's out of the question that they could be told not to. They have the book illegaly, and continuing to use it is illegal. James 14:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * You misframe the issue a bit in my non lawyer opinion, the imposition of restrictions can only happen if the customer agrees to the EULA (the customer is in effect giving up their rights by agreeing to the EULA). Books do not come with EULAs fortunately. As I understand it, copyright law is only applicable in the case of the distribution of copies or derivative works, how the product is used is completely outside its scope. Also, I do think there is a human right to read, it's a slippery slope otherwise. zen master T 15:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A purchaser gives up certain rights when purchasing a book as well. Copyright law is only applicable to copies and derivitive works, but a book obtained improperly, regardless of who is at fault, is not the property of the person who bought it, and thus they have no right to it, even to simply read it. Also, of course there is a human right to read, but not to read everything. You can read whatever you want that's PD. James 17:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * By what process does the purchaser give up those rights? Books only have copyright notices in them. Can you point to specific parts of copyright law that support your claim that someone can be prevented from reading a book? So you dispute my interpretation that copyright law is applicable to only just copying and derivative works? As I understand it the original purpose of copyright law was actually to encourage the spread of ideas and words, not to restrict their distribution. Authors were given a limited time monopoly on their works (so people didn't hoard/monopolize knowledge) for the purpose of encouraging the production of copies which was historically an inefficient time consuming process but is an increasingly unnecessary concern in the digital age. zen master T 17:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Normally, a purchaser CAN read a book they buy, but in this case, the book was bought improperly and copyright law was violated in the process. As I said before, because the copyright holder did not authorize the sale, it is invalid, and the book is still the property of the copyright holder, not the purchaser. Being the property of the copyright holder, he/she can demand its return and the purchaser has no legal standing to challenge that. In essence, it is similar to the sale of stolen goods; while the buyer had nothing to do with breaking the law, they are still required to forfeit the goods obtained. James 18:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * For the sake of argument I will temporarily assume that the sale can be subsequently invalidated but how does that lead to the curtailment of reading? As against freedom and democracy as it would be for police to burst into an early purchaser's home to retrieve a time embargoed book, the concept that there is no human right to read is actually much much worse. A sale time embargo is entirely a bookstore/marketing construct, to my knowledge the copyright notice in the 15 early purchasers' books did not include any sale time embargo requirement, how does copyright law apply to them in this case then? If in the future a copyright notice does include some sort of sale time embargo requirement what is the likelyhood of that being struck down in court as being outside the scope of copyright law? The following two points seem to be strong evidence against the claim that copyright law can be used to support the argument that there is no human right to read: 1) copyright law is explicitly and exclusively applicable to copying (specific to the people doing the copying) or derivative works (specific to the people creating derivative works) and 2) the original intent of copyright law was actually to promote the distribution of copies. In contrast to your argument copyright law was originally meant to reward authors for sharing rather than reward authors for hoarding/monopolizing. How an individual copy of a book is used is outside the scope of copyright law. zen master T 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're completely not following. Copyright law allows the holder to have exclusive rights over how and when and to whom their work is sold. Because the copyright holder did not authorize the sales, they were illegal, and because they were illegal, the posessors of the books were not actually the owners of the books. If you do not own something, you have no rights to it, whatsoever.


 * As far as copyright notices go, they're not even required. Copyright notices don't need to explicitly state anything, because it is a negative right. Basically, a copyright holder has complete control of a copyrighted work, and any uses, other than fair use, have to be explicitly okayed by him/her. James 19:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing invalidating a purchase with restriction of use. A subsequently declared illegal sale does not mean copyright law applies, copyright law only comes into play when someone violates either of the 2 copyright law restrictions, namely copying or creating plus distributing derivative works. For the case of an individual book being stolen or even sold illegally standard theft or illegal sale laws would apply. Even if a sale is declared illegal worst case that just means the police can burst down someone's door to retrieve the book, it does not mean an early purchaser does not have the right to read it. As far as copyright law is concerned a purchaser is paying for an individual physical copy of a book, not the right to read/use it. To use an analogy, if someone buys a car with a bad check copyright law is completely inapplicable and does not allow the dealership to sue or restrict the use of the car's AC. The copyright holder only has complete control over copies and derivative works, not use. The phrase "All rights reserved" means the author retains the right to control copies and derivative works, it does not mean the author has control over how the work is used. The sale of an individual copy of a book is governered under the same laws as a car sale, including subsequently declared illegal sales.


 * I think I see how you and others may be confused now (it always seems to come down to language ambiguity), the legal concept of "fair use" is a copying exception, the word "use" does not refer to use of the original individual copy. "Fair use" means copying exceptions that are considered fair and are allowed, it does not mean uses of an individual copy that are allowed. zen master T 20:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this conversation has gone on about as long as I can take, but I'll leave one last comment. Copyright law has everything to do with invalidating the sale - it is the very reason it is invalid. With any other product, if the seller had legal posession of the product, they would be able to sell it whenever they wanted, but because they need explicit permission from the copyright holder to sell the item, because of copyright law, the sale is invalid. Seeing as the sale is invalid, the purchaser has no right to even posess the book, much less read it. Further, copyright law not only allows the holder to determine how the work is disseminated, but even whether or not it is disseminated.


 * I'm aware that fair use refers to copying exceptions. My point above was that the only uses of a work that are guranteed by law are those enshrined in the doctrine of fair use. I would say that being allowed to read a book that you have bought is implicitly allowed when you purchase an item, but that allowance does not exist when the sale was not authorized by the copyright holder. James 21:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * They need the explict permission of the copyright holder only to distribute copies or derivative works, not to use a legally obtained individual copy. If someone steals a car or their purchase is subsequently declared illegal does copyright law apply? The bookstore is simply the copyright holder's dealership used to sell physical copies of books off the printing press assembly line, they are not selling any rights or a license to use or restrict anything. Your statement that "...the only uses of a work that are guranteed by law are those enshrined in the doctrine of fair use" seems to be in contradiction to your immediately previous statement that you are aware that "fair use" refers to "copying exceptions"? The legal concept of "fair use" does not enshrine or gaurantee any uses of a work under copyright law, it refers to the fairness of copies, which is basically situations where copying is allowed without the explicit consent of the copyright holder. "Fair use" should be renamed to "fair copying" to avoid ambiguous language confusion.  How can copyright mean anything but the right to copy? zen master T 21:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The direction of this discussion has become too strained. The fact of the matter is that a copyright gives its holder complete control over the distribution of their work. Because the sale of the books was not explicitly authorized, the sale violated copyright law, and thus the purchasers did not own the book. If you do not own something that is not a public good, how can you have rights to it? Further, there is no universal right to read everything that is available to read. There are in fact a large number of restrictions on reading from healthcare information to classified information to mail sent via the postal service. To put it simply, mere posession of the book does not entitle the people to read it. James 22:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a standford.edu law site that describes fair use as "in its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and 'transformative' purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work". [emphasis mine] The sale in your example is not applicable to copyright law, instead its under standard theft/illegal sale laws. The only power a copyright holder has is to prevent people from making unauthorized copies or derivative works and/or sue for damages for the same, which would implicate the bookstore, not the early purchaser. The sale of an individual car and an individual book follow the same laws which is not copyright law. Why should books be any different from cars? Nothing I've seen within copyright law supports the notion that there is no human right to read. Also, the same stanford site specifically lists the rights granted to copyright holders, I can't seem to find where the controlling of how a copy is used is mentioned:


 * What rights do copyright owners have under the Copyright Act? ]


 * The Copyright Act of 1976 grants a number of exclusive rights to copyright owners, including:


 * reproduction right -- the right to make copies of a protected work


 * distribution right -- the right to sell or otherwise distribute copies to the public


 * right to create adaptations (called derivative works) -- the right to prepare new works based on the protected work, and


 * performance and display rights -- the rights to perform a protected work (such as a stageplay) or to display a work in public.


 * zen master T 22:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't even say anything about fair use in my last post. A copyright allows its holder to control how and when it's sold. It is a violation to sell without authorization obviously, and Rowling could sue the stores if she really cared. But it's also against the law to have something that you don't own, like a book that was sold illegaly, due to copyright violations. If it's against the law to have it, it's clearly against the law to use it. This is exactly the same as a stolen car. You have no legal right to use a car that was stolen and sold to you, even if you know nothing about the theft. I don't see what you're disagreeing with me on. James 23:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not entirely true. Book owners may resell books how and when they please without regard to the copyright holder.  Some companies, especially the music industry, would like to see those rights curtailed, but the secondhand market is currently thriving.  The books in this case were not sold illegally, but in breach of contract, which is quite different from a stolen car.  T h e St ev e  02:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * We mentioned fair use to clear up the confusion surrounding the fact that the word "use" refers to subsequent copying, not to the uses of an individual legally obtained physical copy. IANAL, but my interpretation is that copyright law has no concept of "use", the law applies only to the subsequent copying and creation of derivative works. Copyright law applies at the earlier time when the publisher/printer prints each book by having an authorized deal with the copyright holder, the act of purchasing an individial physical book later on is covered under regular sales of tangible products/physical ownership transfer/theft laws. Book purchasers actually end up owning their individual physical copy of a book. Any mistake made in this case was done by the bookstore, not the customer. Are thieves who steal cars charged with copyright law violations? Are people that test drive cars before purchase charged with copyright violations? The copyright holder can not restrict "use" because that is outside the scope of copyright law, the only thing they can legally restrict, under copyright law, is unauthorized copying and derivative works. Copyright holders of books may be entitled to restitution for the premature sales of a book, but the store is the entity that seems to have violated copyright law (dubiously assuming time sale embargoing is a violation, it is actually just not adequately protecting ownership over all the individual physical copies). Time sales embargoing is not enforced through copyright law, it is just maintained by having and protecting physical ownership over all the individual physical copies. Someone that buys a car but later the sale is declared illegal is not liable for the milage put on that car if the problems with the sale weren't their fault. They can perhaps be asked to return the car, but that might mean physically driving it back to the dealership, which is use! In your view what exactly could someone be charged with if they know their book sale was declared illegal but they read it anyway? What case law is there that supports the concept of "use" under copyright law? zen master T 01:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In the canadian case, there might be a trade secret component too. &mdash; David Remahl 08:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Under canadian law or just the fact that it was an errant early release? I am not a lawyer but the little I know about trade secrets requires you to do everything in your power to keep them a secret, an early errant book release hardly qualifies in my interpretation. Isn't there a concept in trade secret law that once the cat is out of the bag (for various reasons including lack of effort or impossibility of keeping it a secret) there can be no claim? I read an article a couple days ago about how betting was shut down way before the book was released on which character in HP6 would die, numerous folks from where the book was being printed in England were betting correctly with apparent foreknowledge, were those folks punished/fired? zen master T 08:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * From http://raincoast.com/harrypotter/injunction-commentary.html

In regards to the legal aspects of the injunction, Raincoast and Bloomsbury are the exclusive licensees of Harry Potter in English in Canada. Being the exclusive licensee means Raincoast is authorized, to the exclusion of all others, to distribute or disclose Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in Canada. Distribution or disclosure of the contents in advance of the on-sale date constituted a breach of the exclusive Canadian publication rights of Raincoast and Bloomsbury. It is also a breach of confidence. Breach of confidence is the conveyance of confidential information, the communication of confidential information and the misuse of confidential information. Due to the protection and embargo agreements signed worldwide to protect the contents of the book, Harry Potter was considered confidential information until July 16. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a breach of confidence applies to third party recipients of confidential information, even if innocent at the time of receipt. The Supreme Court of Canada has also established that gains such as “springboard” or “head start” through breach of confidence should not be permitted. This is why the injunction prevents early disclosure and reviews of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. T h e St ev e 00:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * To answer the question "How is the chapter by chapter summary an intellectual property rights violation", see Derivative work, which contains a paragraph from current US copyright law. While IANAL, I suspect that the courts would consider this detailed a plot summary to be a condensation, and thus covered under that paragraph. As for why I care, I'm a photographer. I am in the business of marketing my creative efforts, and copyright law is really what permits me to control (and collect for) the fruits of my labor. I'm in favor of fair use, but IMO this goes beyond anything contemplated in that section of the law. Ken 11:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Condensation" to me implies size is the metric so the fact that the full plot summary is organized by chapter does not prove it is a derivative work in my interpretation, though IANAL. In other words, if condensation applies it would be because the plot summary is too long overall, not because it is organized by chapter. Are you saying the chapter titles are protected, they are a summary already themselves? The full plot summarization seems to be less than 1/100th the size of book 6 and is not being sold. Doesn't copyright law require some "literal" or "verbatum" copying or at least copying the "art" of the original work? An encyclopedia article summarization simply reports the facts of what happened in the plot, some detail seems to be needed to cover all the connections in book 6 to the previous books and the overall story (which I don't see how that can be a derivative work). In your view, what is the max length for a summary and should it be proportional to the length of the work being summarized? Each HP book could easily be a 6 hour movie by itself if it included everything in the book. zen master T 12:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You need not copy anything litterally or verbatum to violate the law. For instance, if someone made a Harry Potter movie based on nothing but the summary on Wikipedia, it would definitely be a derivitive work, despite not even using the book as a direct source. James 14:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, I should mention that I don't consider book (or movie) summaries encyclopedic by themselves. IMO, there is no single work of literature that's worthy of that degree of recognition. A summary of a book may be encyclopedic as part of an article on the book it's a summary of, but not as a separate article. Encapsulated within an article on the book, two or three short paragraphs should be enough to summarize the book.


 * As for how the current plot summary would be a derivative work, I will admit I didn't read the whole thing. (I'm waiting for my neices and nephews to finish the book so I can borrow it. :-) However, I didn't see anything there beyond "This happened in the first chapter, and this in the second, and ..." That's the equivalent of the author's plot outline (assuming Rowling uses that tool), and is quite obviously derivative. Think about how it gets assembled. You read the first chapter and write down what happened. Then you read the second chapter, etc. Your work is derived directly from the author's work. Ken 19:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * IANAL, but this article found at FindLaw.com left very clear to me that Rowling has the advantage in a potential lawsuit:
 * The Copyright Act confers five separate exclusive rights to copyright owners of a literary work. Subject to certain limitations, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to: (1) reproduce the copyrighted work, (2) prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work, (3) distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public, (4) perform the copyrighted work publicly, and (5) display the copyrighted work publicly. Any or all of these rights may be subdivided in an almost infinite number of ways by format, language, territory, or term. 
 * This is a derivative work, and the only defense that we have for it is by calling it fair use. Unfortunately, this does not constitute fair use. Wikipedia's own article on fair use reads that under US law, factors that affect whether a work constitutes fair use or not include:
 * 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * This article is being touted as a replacement for the book, with several Wikipedians stating that they want this article to stay because they don't want to purchase the book;
 * 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * The copyrighted work in this case is a best-selling book just released, which means that there still are substantial numbers that could read this and decide not to purchase the book;
 * 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
 * The fact that we have another summary for The Half-Blood Prince, which is shorter (and adequate) in length makes this page stand out like a sore thumb;
 * 4. and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * Already discussed, some Wikipedians want to use the article as a replacement for the book.
 * Whether someone has the right to read a book is inconsequential. The fact that such a mess has happened in Canada just because a book was released for sale (which means that Rowling will still get revenue from those sales) should be just a warning that she will defend if there's a situation in which she will lose profits. --Titoxd 02:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this article is a derivative work, I don't see how an encyclopedia's non commercial plot summarization and overall story connection synopsis article can be. The length of this article is on the order of 1/100th the size of the book, and it does more than just summarize the book, it connects plot points to the previous books and future plot points that will need resolution. zen master T 15:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of votes...
I realize that to vote, on VfD in particular, it is usually required that you have an account and have contributed a significant amount to Wikipedia. I don't really have a problem with that.

However, I do think that the opinions of these voters should be considered. Remember: Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The process is not what is important: the output is. We, as editors of Wikipedia, are part of the process. The output, however, is evaluated by a much larger group of people: the readers. It seems to me that the small (comparatively to their numbers) amount of input we have received from the readers in this case is generally in favor of keeping the article.

I believe this fact needs to be considered in the tallying of the votes. &mdash; David Remahl 06:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * TBH, I do not see even votes to keep or delete. I suggest that once we figure out what is going on, probably resend this to VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page. The votes are all on Votes for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary, not here. I also haven't seen any votes removed, personally. Hermione1980 23:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there hasn't been. I was not expressing myself clearly. Sorry. There have been no improprieties, I was just pointing out that the admin that makes the decision weighs in the votes of new or anonymous users to some extent. &mdash; David Remahl 23:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. You're talking about discounting of votes, not removal of votes (I think &mdash; correct me if I'm wrong). Yeah, most admins will at least read through the votes from new or anonymous users, but it is up to their discretion as to whether or not to count them in the final tally, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hermione1980 23:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Not EVERYONE is going to read the book! I'm certainly not going to sit down and turn 600+ pages in a day just to hear what happens. Why should I be shut out because there's a few people out there who want to be control freaks and tell the rest of the world...'you can't read this...go buy the book'."


 * In other words, you're too lazy to read the actual book, so you feel you're entitled to have access to what amounts to an abriged version? No.  That's not how it works.  If you don't feel like reading the book/can't afford it/can't read/whatever, then you can ask a friend or wait for the movie.  Exploding Boy 23:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The abridgd vrsion unfrtnately does nt gve all aspcts of the stry and may evn ct out sm imprtnt prts, as evdncd hr. Do nt dprv urslf of n nchntng read. H.J.Potter 20:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought
Wikipedia contains countless articles on dozens of fictional universes. It is quite possible that out records of other franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, various animes) are even more comprehensive. I don't think this is a copyvio for two reasons:


 * 1) We are not quoting vast amounts. That's a real copyvio.
 * 2) We must take into consideration the size of the book in comparison to the size of the article. We have kept the article relatively easy-to-read and NPOV.

User:Merovingian (t) (c) 19:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel that your point 1 is mistaken, insofar as it concerns the reason to be concerned about a possible copyright violation here. There are several ways to violate an author's copyrights. One is, of course, to duplicate a significant portion of the author's work without permission, for uses not contemplated under Fair use. This is the one we usually mean when we refer to a copyright violation, and I agree that the article in question is in no danger of falling into that meaning. However, copyright law also typically grants protection against the creation of derivative works. (This article includes a relevant quote from the U.S.C.)
 * The contention of those who object to this article on copyright grounds (including me) is that this article is a derivative work under this section of the code. We believe that the plot of a book is an essential part of the total creation that is the book, and this detailed a recounting (per the SFWA, this plot summary is long enough to be a novelette) of that plot is thus a derivative work. Since Ms. Rowling (or her solicitors) are known to be zealous in their protection of the Harry Potter intellectual property, this obviously opens Wikipedia up to a potential large lawsuit. Ken 04:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Post-closing comments

 * I moved these comments here from the main page--which should not normally be edited after closing.

I disagree with this interpretation of the vote; however, please note that the content of the summary is preserved at Wikibooks: Harry Potter plots/Half-Blood_Prince. This mirrors the precedent of Atlas Shrugged, which also has book notes at Wikibooks.--Eloquence* 05:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree with it and have undeleted the article for the time being. Normally I would not intervene, but it appears to me that most of the votes are to keep, so deletion seems outrageous. I suggest that we either accept a keep result or try some other method to settle the matter. Everyking 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon: Angela has now deleted the article again. Perhaps we will have to take it to VfU. Everyking 07:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you'd deleted it once and restored it twice before posting this note, it wasn't even clear whether you'd meant to undelete it. I saw no reason for the undeletion and there was nothing on WP:AN about the undeletion. Please note the page has already been transwikied to Wikibooks. Angela. 07:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Did an admin actually count up the votes (what was the final tally)? It seems to me there are more keep votes here. zen master T 11:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the result of the vote was to delete, did the board decide to delete/transwikify instead? If the latter then "the result of this vote was to delete" is inaccurate...? zen master T 02:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but the vote going on at Votes for Undeletion shows a very clear consensus to keep it in Wikibooks (Angela is in the Board, so you could say that the Board said it). See Harry Potter plots/Half-Blood_Prince. No one is protesting that the article should not exist there, as far as I know. --Titoxd 20:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is the closing admin claimed the vote result was for deletion which is false. The undeletion vote is invalid if the original vote was to keep it here. If the board is who decided to move it then that should be noted everywhere. My main question is by what basis/authority was it moved?  The vote here was actually to keep it here, if the board didn't decide anything then it should still be here! This is a breakdown in policy or a breakdown in not properly noting what is going on, this perpetuates an inaccurate historical record. Also, aren't charges of copyright infringement potential stronger if the plot summary is on a book repository site, as opposed to an encyclopedia site (more legal leeway for encyclopedias perhaps [not that it needs it but still])? zen master T 20:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, then take that up with the closing admin. Although I don't think you'll get too far with it: I don't know by what authority it was removed, but what I do know is that it followed policy, it went through VfU, the process to correct arbitrary deletions (which is what you're claiming) and it was agreed with a large consensus that it should stay deleted. In fact, since no one really protested to the soft redirect, the VfU vote was closed and deleted just a few minutes ago. The article was deleted, so it fell under VfU jurisdiction, making the vote valid. As for the copyright charges, yes, the offending material still survives, but the likelihood of it being the cause of a lawsuit is lower, because Wikibooks is nowhere as visible as Wikipedia, which ranks consistently in the top 100 in Alexa ratings. And as far as I know, there's no expanded leeway for encyclopedia, a copyvio is still a copyvio in an encyclopedia...
 * P.S: It's nice to see someone this passionate about an article... that's not seen very often. --Titoxd 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently no anti-delete editors were aware of the vote for undeletion. Was some effort made to contact editors that voted do not delete in the original vote?  The original vote was actually to keep I believe (I have not actually tallied the votes, but I assume it is close). I am shocked wikipedia allows such vote result obfuscation to exist. How did the deletion follow policy if the original vote was to keep it? By which exact logical argument was it not acceptable inside wikipedia? zen master T 21:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently by the fact that the third comment in this section says "perhaps we will take it to VfU" (and these comments were on the main deletion page before they were moved here). If you're tallying up the votes, are you taking into account the vast amount of sock-puppeting that was involved in the vote? Many of the votes should be discounted because they came either from Harry-lovers or Harry-haters that made an account just to vote here. If the deletion didn't follow policy, that's what VfU is for, and if it was decided that it should stay deleted, well, it stays deleted. You can always open another Vote for Undeletion, if you want, but I doubt it will get far, since most people were happy with it staying in Wikibooks. What logical argument was followed? Wikipedia is not a place for detailed book summaries. Wikibooks was made for that purpose. Follow the link above and you'll see the classification/inter-wiki-ing scheme that is being used. --Titoxd 21:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the purpose of Wikibooks is to have complete copies of publically available books, not summaries that also additionally tie the overall HP series togther. If the article was initially deleted because someone determined it violates policy then THAT exact reasoning should be noted, it should NOT inaccurately be claimed that the vote result itself supported deletion. Instead of assuming the vote result why don't we both actually tally it up (removing sockpuppets of course)? Aren't vote results normally counted up and posted at the top? I don't understand how something can be taken to VfU if it doesn't first legitimately pass through VfD?  Again, why weren't editors informed of the VfU as obviously many more people voted in the VfD (that should tell you something)? zen master T 21:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, complete copies of books (and others) are the purpose of Wikisource, not Wikibooks. At least that's the reasoning in the VfU vote. If this whole issue can be fixed by changing "The result of the vote was to delete" to "The result of the vote was to transwiki", then that can be done. As for tallying it up, it can be done, and while it's not policy to post results at the top, that can be done also.
 * VfU is design to catch mistakes in VfD. If this page wasn't legitimately deleted in VfD, then VfU is supposed to fix that. If it wasn't undeleted in VfU, then that means in all likelihood that it was treated properly. As for notifying users, it isn't written anywhere that users voting in a VfD should be notified of a VfU. It is assumed that if a nomination is too controversial, people will follow it. But even then, in this case, they was a notification, when a mention of VfU was placed at the top. While more people did vote in VfD, the crowd at VfU was different, and in a way, uninvolved in the VfD vote, making a new debate. Anyways, if you decide that a new VfU is warranted, do so, and warn editors if you want. But my question is: what is the problem with it being transwikied? Why does it have to be in Wikipedia, if it was sent to a more appropriate sister project? --Titoxd 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the vote here was actually to keep it, not to delete or transwiki it. A majority of editors disagreed with both arguments that the summary is a copyright violation and/or should be moved to wikibooks, how was the move justified then? Shouldn't the argument to move it make sense in some way, either under copyright law or under wikipedia policies? If something makes sense then it should make sense in the light of day, but no one is fully explaining it, it seems like obfuscation is going on here. Doesn't a vote with a larger number of editors carry more weight that a vote with a smaller number of editors, the do not delete consensus from the original vote is stronger than the delete vote in the VfU?  But most importantly why the mislabeled closing of the vote as "delete" (or even "transwiki") both of which would be an inaccurate description of this vote?  Isn't one tenet of voting the concept that each editor's vote will be officially counted? Can you understand why some editors might be concerned by this? zen master T 22:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't understand why some editors are concerned with this. One thing is to worry about process, and another one is to worry about results. The result is that the material is still available (to the disgust of the pro-delete crowd), just not in Wikipedia (to the disgust of the anti-delete crowd). Doesn't that sound more like a compromise than anything else? In any case, the VfU vote will always supercede the VfD discussion, because VfU is an appelate court for VfD, if you want to call it that. The fact that VfD has more votes doesn't mean that the vote is more valid, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. As far as I know, no one protested a transwiki-ing, everyone just ignored it. And stop with the conspiracy theories and assume good faith on part of the admins and pro-deleters, . If you are so offended by this, just post it in VfU again! It's the third time I've said this. --Titoxd 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Results"? A compromise usually means both sides agree to it, rather than a handful of editors simply impose it upon everyone else without explanation. Is it possible everyone ignored the vote because they thought the result of the original vote was to keep the article here? I commented on the error of the vote tally as soon after I noticed it a few days ago, no one responded to my complaint until the day the VfU closed, shouldn't people have referred me to the VfU back then? A second VfU is an inaccurate course of action to take if the initial VfD was not concluded or closed properly. How does 53 keep here votes support transwiki-ing? I assume good faith, but I also point out evidence to the contrary, namely the apparent disregard for 53 do not delete votes, a 70% majority. If Wikipedia is not a democracy and/or not pro-consensus then what is the point of the VfD process?  zen master T 23:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you decide to pursue it, a second VfU IS an appropriate course of action, given that VfU is there when there are accusations of a VfD not being closed properly or consensus being ignored or any other unilateral or arbitrary action.
 * It seems you misunderstood what I said. Wikipedia is not a democracy, meaning that administrators are given leeway in making decisions and are not bound by numeric voting. Admins don't usually go against votes, but when they do, VfU is there for that. If you read the VfU discussion, you'll see that both sides did agree to it. --Titoxd 23:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If a small number of admins can go against VfD voting what is to stop them from going against VfU voting? When admins do go against voting shouldn't they usually explain their rationalization, rather than merely refer people to the VfU page? I read the VfU page and I see no compromise here, the vast majority of editors voted to keep the article on VfD originally, their voices were not adequately represented on the VfU page. Can we set a precedent for the future that if someone inquires on a talk page about an improperly closed vote they will be referred to the VfU page before the last day of voting from now on? And perhaps in the future everyone that voted initially will be notified of a second/VfU vote too? Perhaps we should additionally clarify the vote closing process because it's unclear how VfU is applicable when the will of the people is denied through an improperly tabulated/closed VfD vote result. zen master T 00:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A VfU vote is not going to be "ignored", because going against it is usually grounds for a Request for Comments. If you think that the voices of the anti-delete crowd wasn't heard, say so in a new VfU. But I read it too, and I also did a rough tabulation of the votes in the VfD, and the majority voted Condense and merge. The amount of users that adamantly refused any type of modification was smaller than those who wanted the article nuked.
 * The procedure is very clear. In any case where a deletion is disputed, it should be brought up in Votes for Undeletion. If the will of the people was ignored, why no one else is complaining? And is there a problem with it being in Wikibooks and having a soft redirect, instead of it being in Wikipedia? That you haven't answered.
 * As for the precedents, I agree that there is need for a precedent, but here isn't the place to do it. Mention these concerns in the VfU talk page, in the VfD talk page, and anywhere else you think may be pertinent. I'll say that it is a good idea to put a notice (maybe a template) on VfD vote pages that are currently up in VfU for the future. --Titoxd 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, 53 keeps to 22 deletes (only "Votes made logged in" section) is grounds to delete? What is this crazy definition of "consensus" that calls less than 30% a consensus?? Cburnett 22:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm willing to let this go, after reading the above, it seems like a failure to protest (either here or on a VfU) is being interpreted as consent, so, for the record -- I believe that it's okay for an admin to disregard voting, but when they do so, they need to explain that in their reasoning when they close it out, and not claim a consensus to delete or transwiki when none existed. Even among established users there was a majority to keep. And usually there needs to be an overwhelming majority to delete a page. If its a close call, it doesn't get deleted. I don't have a problem with people making mistakes, but I don't want mistakes to be interpreted as precedent. --Arcadian 01:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In order to prevent stuff like this happening again, I've made a proposal that places a VfU notification in the VfD subpage (so those who were following the debate can see it on their watchlist) once debate starts at VfU. Look over it, and comment there also. --Titoxd 02:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki contrary to stated argument for deletion
It seems I am here a litle late. However, my contribution. As stated by others it would appear that the majority vote was to keep. Ok, maybe some of these were invalid votes, but I have not seen any justification of which were allowed and which ignored. More to my point, I find that the action taken contradicts the main argument made by many contributors. It was claimed that the articles represent a copyright violation. If this is accepted, then it can not go on any wiki. If it is not accepted, then I would assume that any vote made to delete using these grounds should not be counted. I think this would then have left a majority to keep. I do not see how you could make a decision to transwiki on the grounds that it is a copyvio???

Now, it has been argued that the articles have found a new home on wikibooks. This is not true. The articles as transferred were acceptable to wikibooks on grounds of copyright, but unacceptable on grounds of content. There has been a long discussion there about this. They regard the articles as encyclopedic, and unsuitable for wikibooks. They also have a policy of not accpeting half of a project, the remainder of which is elsewhere. The book has only been accepted provisionally, on the grounds that it will be radically altered. If it were so altered, then it would inevitably subsume and supercede all the HP articles currently on 'pedia. Which of course gives rise to their concern that they do not host encyclopedias, and do not host half projects. I have posted a couple of character write-ups there just to see what would happen. Nothing. It has potential to become an analysis book, but it was and still is in reality an appendix to the articles here. Sandpiper 15:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The full plot summary should be moved back to wikipedia if there are issues on wikibooks. The full plot summary is not a copyright vio (in my non lawyer opinion) and it is encyclopedic and noteworthy and the original vote here was clearly to keep it here. zen master T 16:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)