Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.A.B.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus was reached, defaulting to keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R.A.B.

Speculation. The only part of this article that isn't unverifiable, original research, or both is the first line: "R.A.B. is a set of initials from J.K. Rowling's book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." —Cryptic (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:NOR --Allen3 talk 00:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even nominator states that the subject isn't unverifiable or original research and the edit history of the article suggests an interest. If there are parts of any article that fall under original research then you delete those sections, not an entire article. --TheMidnighters 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "XYZ is a set of initials from Book Q" is not an article unless it's expandable. This is not. —Cryptic (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Well judging by the size of the article and the amount of contributors I'd say it has been expanded. The initials refer to a character that is apparently notable. There is speculation and debate in other articles (Balrog for example) but when it is supported by citations and sources from the author I think it's allowable. --TheMidnighters 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan. However, the number of HP related articles is already growing too large, and this article is ONLY about speculation. It could serve no other purpose. I urge anyone considering a keep vote to read WP:NOT and think about it. Friday 01:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to some proper place. DES 02:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too much crystal ballery. Although I have to say the book is quite amazing. But the article is unencyclopedic. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm guessing this information is already in about five other articles anyway. Hansamurai 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as unverifiable fancruft speculation. Postdlf 04:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I edited it to make it more encyclopedia-like. Osu8907 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until it's actually revealed who it is (presumably in the seventh book), and then merge into the article of that character. Cyclone49 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - fancruft. --Idont Havaname 07:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any good reason not to merge and redirect? Or at least merge? I think the article as it stands is decent, and as a section in the HBP book article might be good. Yes, the HBP article is getting long, but I think coverage of one of the book's most crucial mysteries is the sort of thing we do for more "classic" literature. I don't see why it would be inappropriate here. Let's preserve this reasonably well-written content, even though it is clearly not a free-standing article. Jwrosenzweig 07:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please watch the article for VFD notice removal. --Tim Pope 09:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if redirecting then redirect to Rab Butler -or at least to the Rab dab page --Doc (?) 13:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of characters in the Harry Potter books or something. - ulayiti 14:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the dab page at RAB. Dunc|☺ 15:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article has been significantly reworked since initial VFD posting Presnell 18:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been improved, but this only shows that it needs to go away. There's very little in there and little hope of expansion unless we go back to lots of speculation. The only purpose I can see served by this is that people are encouraged to debate their theories on the talk page. See WP:NOT. There are forums for that sort of thing. There's even an entire HP Wiki with different rules and standards than here. Friday 19:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the note(legit. fair use) into Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince then delete the article. Superm401 | Talk 22:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC) Keep. With the changes made(some by me), I think it has enough information to be a useful article without having speculation. (vote changed by me)Superm401 | Talk 21:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge -- this doesn't deserve it's own link by any stretch of the imagination. Nandesuka 02:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge -- R.A.B. by itself can mean manythings and nothing in particular from an encyclopeadia point of vue. So i uggest to move this article's content to an other article with more relation with HPotter (Horcrux or the 6th HP book for example) with the mention "SPECULATION" for the "question-able" part.
    • this vote placed by 217.128.127.197 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into horcrux. R.A.B. is highly significant, perhaps more so for book 7. If it can mean many things, then it needs to be disambiguated, but as it is only this, redirecting R.A.B. there after information is merged will be fine. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Even when Harry Potter: Book Seven comes out, we won't need a whole page for R.A.B., since that could be redirected to the character's real identity.
  • Keep. This is likely to be the subject of considerable interest between now and the publication of the final Harry Potter book, a significant portion of which will be reportable and encyclopædic and not uniquely relevant to any other subject. This information should not be spatchcocked into some marginally-related article, it should be kept separate in the best interests of reducing duplication. —Phil | Talk 16:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, don't merge per Phil freestylefrappe 19:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC).
  • Strong Keep, don't merge yet per Rob - Let the people have this until we know which character it is!
  • V.F.D. --Michael Snow 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't merge per above --John Hubbard 02:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into horcrux. There really is no materal left to exapnd this article that woudl nto reduce it to a discussion fourm. It seems that there is not a lot of dispute among fans as to the identy of R.A.B. anyway. There is not enough enclipedic materal on this topic at the moment for it to be anythign but a heading in Horcrux. Dalf | Talk 04:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly merge R.A.B. is likely to become a well-known and much-debated mystery figure as we wait for the seventh book, and so there should be a reference about him/her, however basic or seemingly trivial the information within the article may be. What's more, this is a definitive character whose identity will eventually be revealed, and when that happens, the R.A.B. article can then be merged appropriately. SoVerySpiffy | Talk 07:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I rather think the inverse of that is true. Until there is enough content for an article it should be merged (it is already mentioned in no fewer then 4 other articles with essentially all the information here). When (and if) it ever becomes a topic with enough for a full article then it can be split out. Dalf | Talk 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've stated many times in various places (and in different forms) that I dislike speculation and try to remove it from the Harry Potter articles. I think this article is completely clean of speculation and actually presents some good information on what is one of the larger sources of discussion. --Deathphoenix 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This belongs on a Harry Potter message board, not on Wikipedia. Isotope23 01:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is an important article. It will most likly grow once HP7 comes out and the rest of the details can be filled in. But till then it is an important start to an important character page that will grow after the releace of HP7.--michael180 18:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I find it hard to imagine a way that book 7 could make this article grow beyone confirmation of the name of the charicter in question. If it is very significat to the plot then the content belong in the pag on book 7. If it is not that significant then it adds perhaps 2 sentences to this article. This is at best a partial sub-plot of a book that is unpublished. A book that already has a large number of articles where this information belongs. Article fragmentation I into hundreds of one paragraph pages I think dammaged the Harry Potter articles in wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 01:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't want to see it deleted now and end up heatedly re-created upon the release of Harry Potter 7. --Starryboy 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, even if just as a list of links to possibilities.--TH 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with the above users!--bagheera_101 13:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_R.A.B._1846.html"