Please discuss candidates for deletion here
Lists of archived discussions and their results. Sorted by year in which the discussion started.
- Archive 1 (2007)
- Archive 2 (2008)
- Archive 3 (2009)
- Archive 4 (2010)
- Archive 5 (2011)
- Archive 6 (2012)
- Archive 7 (2013)
| This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.|
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.
Is this worthy of an article? I realize that we have articles on numerous generic things that appear in canon, but surely this is pushing it? Harry once threw a stick at either Crabbe or Goyle (can't quite recall which). Should we have an article on sticks? A line should be drawn somewhere. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:35, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
- I think it should be redirected to "Walking stick", but wanted to ask someone/anyone else before doing so. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:56, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
- If you think that's unworthy, just notify there's random stuff like Unidentified bluebird and Unidentified Black Death Eater at the Battle of Hogwarts (II). Donut4 || TALK PAGE 14:00, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is definitely not worthy of an article. It's not even a real object appearing in the book, and is only mentioned when Harry thinks Wood is a cane. Flabshoe1 (talk) 19:40, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
The Existential Adulteration of Harry Potter
The Existential Adulteration of Harry Potter should be taken off the candidates for deletion list because, although not an official part of the canon, it does add an interesting element to the Potter series.
It is, in essence, Book 3.5. I found this book while browsing Potter books on Amazon, read it, and enjoyed it so much that I thought other Harry Potter fans should know about it. One should at least read the book before deeming it unrelated to Harry Potter and unworthy for this site.
Perhaps a special consideration should be made for this title due to its unique content and growing popularity.
Thank you for reading.
- It is still a fanon piece with no place in this wiki in and for itself. A page listing the most important fanons out there might have some merits, though. MinorStoop 13:00, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I admit that as it currently stands this page is just a duplicate of another page, and thus will need a rename, conjecture tag and rewrite, I feel that if we can have a page for one single Horcrux mentioned obscurely in one interview, there should perhaps be a page for seven notable, if not crucial, Horcruxes seen throughout the series. A link could go on the Horcrux page to this page and all information pertaining to Voldemort's Horcruxes can be summarised on that page and expanded upon in this one. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:57, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking more or less. Why does it need a rename? Where is there conjecture on the page? If it was okay on the previous article, what's wrong with it on this one? Why does it need a rewrite? Jdogno7 (talk) 13:09, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
- It needs a conjecture tag because "Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes" isn't a name used directly in the series for the things. Therefore, it's something called a "conjectural title" - the title was made by a user on the wiki so that it'd be easier to find. The rename is because the "Marvolo" in the title is unneccessary. I'm pretty sure the article is all right as is and thus probably won't need a rewrite at all, but some other editors might be tweaking little things along the way as seen fit by them. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:18, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
Well since Tom Riddle's Horcruxes linked to the main Horcrux article page, that was the closest name I could use that wasn't used by another article. Is there a way to fix that? Jdogno7 (talk) 23:36, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
- If it's decided that the article can stay, I'll fix that. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:41, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
- What could be done is keep the page Horcrux with general information about the horcruxes and move the informations about Voldemort's horcruxes that is in the text Horcrux to mix with the text Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes and make it better to doesn't be deleted. So the wikia would have following pages: 1) Horcrux: a page with general information about the horcruxes; 2) and pages with information about the wizards who created horcruxes which are: 2a) Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes and... 2b) Herpo the Foul's Horcrux. Andre G. Dias (talk) 08:36, March 2, 2014 (Brazil)
- What happened to my page? When was it deleted?
- I thought pages weren't to be deleted until a consensus was reached unless the pages were fanonical; this page, while currently little more than a duplicate of another page, serves the potential to be a very erstwhile and useful page if the suggestions listed above were taken. However, others seem to disagree, so this is the place to provide reasons why the page should be outright deleted. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:08, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
Possibly fanonical pages about Anne and Alysha
Though there is a link to Pottermore on one of them, these pages refer to individuals born in 2003. I strongly suspect them to be fanonical, so I've tagged them for deletion. Since the author seems to disagree, I brought it here. MinorStoop 07:17, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
A category of uncertain relevance
There is an ongoing discussion between user Jdogno7 about the category Magic invented by Fred and George Weasley. Jdogno7 maintains that this category and the one for Category:Fred and George Weasley's inventions have both relevance, I maintain that "Inventions by..." suffices. Opinions? MinorStoop 07:51, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
- At present time, I would tend to agree with MinorStoop that "Inventions by" renders "Magic invented by" rather redundant, and the latter category should be deleted or merged with the former. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:06, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
I'm differentiating between an original piece of magic as opposed to a new use for an already existing piece of magic.
- Chicken and ham sandwiches are not noteworthy as such, but the plate magically refilling itself when empty is noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:15, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Rename the page to "Self-refilling plate" or similar? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it was fixed by Cubs Fan2007 (as can be seen in the History Log page), so I think we can forget about and remove the Category "Candidates for deletion" of the redirect page Ravenclaw House. Andre G. Dias (talk) 14:10, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
Deletion category going-over
It might be worth to go over the items tagged for deletion - many of them are redirects to talk pages or tagged a few months ago with no discussion. Thanks! MinorStoop 09:08, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
- To my mind, "Candidates for deletion" (or whatever it's called on any particular wiki) should be a strictly temporary category; pages should be in it for two weeks at most, after which either the delete tag or the article itself (whichever is warranted) should be deleted. That's my take anyway. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:42, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Filius McGonagall should be a candidate for deletion as it is a good page and it has a lot of things which are true in it. Also there is a lot of good things on the page whch could increase popularity of this wikia!
- It's unfortunately very fanonical and rightfully deleted. MinorStoop 16:19, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
"Harry Potter and the Sorcer's[sic] Stone" and its talk page
These are both redirects, artefacts of someone moving "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to the given title (in violation of wiki policy). I can understand why "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" might be a desired redirect, but this one is a misspelling, so I don't see what purpose it could possibly serve. Delete. — RobertATfm (talk) 23:37, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know whether the search engine would be able to deal with this kind of misspelling even without redirects, but wouldn't be surprised if somebody entered it. Keeping them as redirects is unhurtful at best and useless at worst. MinorStoop 07:26, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- WADA, if you're smart, you'll wait until your page has been discussed and a consensus has been reached, or even better you'll start a blog. MinorStoop 11:35, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
- The fact is it does not meet the Notability standards. I'll give WADA one day from now to move the content they wish to save to either a blog or their userpage, then this article will be deleted. - Nick O'Demus 11:43, September 22, 2014 (UTC)