This is an archive of closed discussions from Category talk:Candidates for deletion from 2008. Please do not modify it. It is here for archival purposes only.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article should be deleted.Me_Potter_Fan 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
More appropriate as a forum topic, not an article. Mafalda Hopkirk 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix (seen only in photo) Edit
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This Pages realy needs to be deleted because it serves no point.Me_Potter_Fan 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
It should be a forum topic, not an article. Mafalda Hopkirk 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is either fandom or a forum topic. Mafalda Hopkirk 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
No further comment. Mafalda Hopkirk 05:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article should be deleted. It's disgusting and offensive. There is nothing more to write about the "mutilated baby" that appears at King's Cross other than this one paragraph, so having an article entitled "mutilated baby" seems vulgar and obsolete. Mafalda Hopkirk 08:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
It is copied from an outside source. Note the missing clickable links such as "TOP" Mafalda Hopkirk 02:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Looks like it was taken from the HP Lexicon. However, a cohesive, originally written timeline might not be a bad idea. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't the dates pages make up a timeline? Mafalda Hopkirk 14:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. But I think he means an overall timeline of what happened, that would then link to dates and events with more information about each. Like this. -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 14:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Or branch of into other, more detailed articles like battle articles, event articles, etc. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Just the page isn't needed. Mafalda Hopkirk 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I fixed the coding so the tabledraft page isn't needed anymore. Mafalda Hopkirk 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
(from discussion page)Do we really need a page with links to categories about the Order of the Phoenix? We have all the members listed at Order of the Phoenix anyway, and characters are categorised by whether or not they were in the first or second orders. And, by deleting, we eliminate an Orphaned Page. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 14:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If all the info is located on the main article then I don't see the need for a second page. Mafalda Hopkirk 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1. Her first and last name can never be known
2. Her first name is not Grandmother and her last name is not Remus - Remus is Lupin's first name.
3. How can her blood status ever be determined? Mafalda Hopkirk 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1. His first and last name can never be known
2. His first name is not Grandfather and his last name is not Remus - Remus is Lupin's first name.
3. How can his blood status ever be determined? Mafalda Hopkirk 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless this person is going to act in future HP movies it has nothing to do with HP. Mafalda Hopkirk 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
According to The Leaky Cauldron, he is rumoured to be playing Fenrir Greyback in Half-Blood Prince. Cleaned up and kept for now, but will be deleted if it proves false. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There has recently been the addition (by 66.245.29.175) of all these pages of characters who, from what I can tell, are not from the HP series at all. They are all listed as "Muggles". I think they may be characters from the television show Heroes, but I'm not familiar enough with it to be sure. I've tagged a few for deletion, but I think they're all vandalism. 24.141.82.173 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
They were all Heroes character, yep. Great show but not welcome here. All deleted. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
I just think that this article is not necessary. The character doesn't exist in the books, and has a very minor role in the movie. The title is not very "professional", and it is just not a good article. Freakatone 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Got to go with Keep on this one. He's a notable addition to the movies, is arguably as important and noticable as Nigel, and just because he isn't in the books is no reason not to include him on the wiki. This wiki covers all aspects of the HP universe, from the books to the games. Also, while the title may not be "professional", it is accurate. Also, the character reportedly has garner a small amount of interest within certain elements of the fan community. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cavlier One. He's a character -- no matter how small. -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
yeah, you guys are right, after re-watching the movie, he is a way more important character than I remembered him to be. Freakatone 16:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Mafalda didn't make it into the final copy of the books. Should we keep the article anyway? I personally don't think we should. --Freakatone 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Even though she didn't make it into the books, she was important enough for JK to put the information on her site. We should be striving to include all information. Also, please read our Canon policy - in the examples of usage section, there is a small piece on Mafalda and her status within Canon. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 17:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the article is about her role in the series. In the Wiki:Canon it says that her role in the book is non-canon. Should it be deleted? --Freakatone 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The information shouldn't be deleted, but the article should be overhauled to move all the stuff that couldn't have happened into a Behind the scenes section with appropriate links to JK Rowling's website. Also, there appears to be a lot of speculation in the article. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
A little late I think, but just throwing in my support for keeping it. -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I've done my best to try to tidy up the article and arrange everything so that it's clear the character is not canonical. Malfalda was created by J.K. Rowling, and played a very large role in an early draft of one of the books, so I think that she's certainly a lot closer to canon than original characters from the films and video games. -Starstuff 00:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
They're just empty pages, with no useful or canonical information. It just feels like fanon someone added to vandalise the wiki. --Cubs Fan2007 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Done
Crazy stuff. -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I just don't think this page is needed. Mafalda Hopkirk 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If we keep this page we would have to create pages for the other character's birthdays. Dumblydoor 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But, we do have pages for a lot of birthdays. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be deleted. CTeng 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What page do we have for any birthdays? -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
(copied from talk page)
I think we should merge this with Blood Purity, and have Blood Purity be the main article. Mafalda Hopkirk 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's even needed. It contains too much Original Research, and none of the article is backed up by any evidence from the series. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea i think it should be merged with blood purity as it is interesting! Icthlarin 06:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Is any of that page backed by any official source (or any outside source)? Or is it all conjectural and assumed? -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article seems unnessary since the only magical tournaments mentioned in Canon are the Triwizard Tournament and the Quidditch World Cup, both of which have their own articles. Keeping it will only serve as a "list page" linking to the two aforementioned articles. Thoughts? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 16:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This character is a fanon, and should be deleted. --Freakatone 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. One of our resident admins will probably see to that when they log on next. -Starstuff 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I think its cause if specializies in HP merchandise? I remember it being added, but I don't know anything about it. -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 15:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's well known, they it has a valid claim to stay. It needs to be majorly cleaned up and NPOVed though because it reads like an advertisement at the moment. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Page was deleted. -- FreakatoneTalk 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I dont think that we need this because I think it is fanon, but I don't know. - Tyminator1 (Talk) 13:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ive never heard about it till now so i consider it to be not notable enough.Me_Potter_Fan 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be deleted; It's a relevent parody, and I didn't know about it until reading that particular page. Safe 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete ts is useless rubbish! Icthlarin 06:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Done
-- FreakatoneTalk 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Page was deleted. -- FreakatoneTalk 11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is just one page with every non-canonical spell on it now. I think the group should be deleted. Mafalda Hopkirk 08:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was deleted. -- FreakatoneTalk 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the function of this category is better served by the "Behind the scenes" sections found in most articles. JKR is rather clever when it comes to naming things, so most everything in her series is a pun, and I don't think having a category like this will really help anyone pick up on the jokes they might have missed. -Starstuff 09:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
{{{result}}} {{{sig}}}
Has been added to Non-canonical spells-Matoro183(Talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No. Non-canonical spells needs to be split into individual articles. -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, then I'll remove the delete tag-Matoro183(Talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Beat you to it. :) -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article's name is mispelled. Already exists an article with the right name (Verdimillious). Seth Cooper 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
{{{result}}} {{{sig}}}
There is other pages about creatures that don't exsist, so I don't see why this page needs to be deleted. There's nothing to say that mythical creatures can't have a page. Palmala 6 July
I removed the template. I'm thinking maybe we could have use another category besides "Creatures" for made up creatures. -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, there are quite a few that are classed as creatures but have no prove of being real. Palmala 20:37, 6 July 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This seems a little too...wikipedian. Why do we need categories if we don't use them instead of this article?--Matoro183(Talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Having a list of characters underimines the real world perspective of the wiki. It's gotta go. - –K.A.J•T•C•E• 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Their is no evidence that this is real anywhere. Me_Potter_Fan(Talk) 10:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Dog needs to be kept. There are dogs in the wizrding world.--Matoro183(Talk) 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't recall ever hearing this term in canon. Lorcan d'Eath is referred to as part-vampire, not half-vampire. Also, there's no evidence that Rufus Scrimgeour is half-vampire. The only thing that comes close is Luna speculating that he is a vampire at one point. Oread 21:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking Merge with part-vampire and delete (or maybe redirect?) -- DarkJedi613(Talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
That was my mistake. I wanted to do this into the german wiki. Can be deleted.--Rodolphus 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
'
I disagree with this canadate. This is known information and such f what we are getting in the movie. Please reconsider. I am improving it, it just takes a while, as it is a big page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChaosMaster16 (talk • contribs).
I think it should be deleted, with any relevant information moved to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) article. There's a special thanks section at the end as well, which is completely unencyclopedic. Oread 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a completely worthless article, it adds nothing to the wiki, and it's totally unencyclopedic. –K.A.J•T•C•E• 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Deletion template placed by Oread on 21st December, removed by You-Know-Who on the same date. The template should not have been removed - if an article is believed to be worthy of deletion by one party, it must be discussed and the community consensus heeded. Deletion notice claims information is a repetition of information already in the Harry Potter article, and as such does not need its own article. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
My actions is the result of my ignorance and because i am new here, and i am VERY SORRY for that. My main reason why i created the Harry Potter's scar Article is because that portion of the story is also important to me. And I'm thinking also that it would be help for others who will search for that article and instead to read the entire Harry Potter main article. - You-Know-Who--You-Know-Who 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not dead-set against this article — the scar is quite important to the series — but it seems rather arbitrary to me. The scar is a part of Harry. We don't have separate articles for Peter Pettigrew's silver hand, or Moody's wooden leg or eye. And all of those are separate objects on their own, artificial replacements; Harry's scar may be inbued with magical peculiarities, but it is still very much a part of him. It's inconsistent. Also, as I said in the original tag, the article does not present any information that isn't already present in the Harry Potter article. However, I agree that some people may want to read about the scar without having to look at the entire Harry Potter article, which is rather long. Oread 17:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I added some quotes from the series (films and book) that gives additional information about Harry Potter's scar, to give discuss expansion about the scar, and i believe it is very annoying if it is read or to input in Harry Potter's main article.--You-Know-Who 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
i think, i'll change the title to "lightning scar" instead of "Harry Potter's scar". --You-Know-Who 01:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article now does seem to have more information that would clutter the Harry Potter article, so I can see the argument for keeping it, but I still think there is a consistency issue. However, I'm going to move the article back to its original name. "Lightning scar" sounds as if it is a scar caused by lightning. If the title was going to be based on the shape of the scar, it would have to be "Lightning bolt-shaped scar". "Harry Potter's scar" is the most specific. Oread 05:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently, i move the article to "Lightning scar" the reason is because, that is not the only scar that Harry's got in the series. I realize it when i re-read the Order of the Phoenix and watched the movie too. Harry also got scar on his hand, remember? When Dolores Umbridge punish him in her office. In the book, it resulted as a scar. it was mentioned as "white scar" to be exact. For this reason, We can still use the Lightning scar as the title, as if it is only mentioned in the series referring to the scar on Harry's forehead. What do you think, moderators? --You-Know-Who 05:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
While Harry Potter Wiki has had articles on personal possessions for some time, until the article on Harry's scar was created, we didn't have an article about a specific physical feature. I can understand having an article on a physical feature if it's unique and relevant to the plot, like Harry's scar, or if it's an example of a magical device not seen elsewhere in the series, like Moody's false eye or Pettigrew's silver hand. We definitely need to revise our notability guidelines if we plan on accepting articles of this type. We don't need stuff like "Severus Snape's nose," "Lily Evans' eyes," and "Ronald Weasley's freckles" popping up. I agree with You-Know-Who that the title "Harry Potter's scar" is kind of ambiguous. The only alternatives I can think of are "Harry Potter's lightning bolt-shaped scar" and "Harry Potter's forehead scar." ★ Starstuff(Owl me!) 04:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't compare Harry Potter's scar to Severus Snape's snose or Lily Evan's eyes. Harry's scar is very different and very very important to the story so i decided to create this article, it so dissapointing that in the Harry Potter encyclopedia like this, having very lack of information. Some pages are look disgusting and very annoying to the eyes while reading it. That is the one reason why i joined here, to help... --You-Know-Who 09:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting Harry's scar isn't important in the books or that we shouldn't have an article on it. I'm only saying that having an article on a notable physical feature like Harry's scar could possibly lead someone to create one or more articles on features that aren't all that relevant to the story. People might have different interpretations of what is important to the story, though, which is why I brought up Lily's eyes, because they're mentioned several times throughout the books and do play a significant symbolic role. As for Ron's freckles and Snape's nose, I just threw those in as examples of articles someone might create as a joke, if they saw the article on Harry's scar and came to the conclusion that our standards of notability must not be very high. Which is why I said I think we need to lay out some notablity rules. It will help to prevent misunderstandings. Also it will help to resolve the consistency concerns which Oread expressed above. ★ Starstuff(Owl me!) 10:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yah! Yah, now i got your point or what you are trying to say Starstuff, and i agree with you. --You-Know-Who 16:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.