Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpet Book

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#Online_leaks_and_early_delivery Already adequately covered there. May be notable in future, if offender is tracked down. ELIMINATORJR 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carpet Book

Carpet Book (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pottercruft - even the first line shoots itself in the foot. Will ^(talk) 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. The leak of the biggest book release in recent history is relevant. This is sure to develop as the investigation continues. -cruft is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Nominator does not cite a valid policy reason to delete. Vodak 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete has no notability, yet. If Canon does manage to track down the person that did this, it will probably have enough notability to be merged to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. --Longing.... 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into spoilers section in HP7 article or Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series -- Jelly Soup 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Not sure how copyfree that picture is either WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Gscshoyru 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge. The topic is already amply covered in the article for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
• Keep. Legitimate news. Doovinator 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Its legitimacy isn't the issue. The issue is whether this story—one of many connected with the book—merits its own article. The Deathly Hallows article already covers this story, along with many others connected with the release. Marc Shepherd 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge any content here Recurring dreams 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep. If this issue can be broadened to fit the topic in the article (i.e. give more examples of how there were leaks of the book, etc.), then this page is worth keeping (possibly with a different title. If this is not done within a reasonable amount of time, then just merge it with the main article. Jared (t)  14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. This article has hardly info that the Deathly Hallows article doesn't cover and this situation isn't notable to have it's own article either. Almost every book has early accidental releases, apperently the Harry Potter series is no exception. There is no reason to keep this article.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to the Deathly Hallow article. Or not. --Tony Sidaway 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. –sebi 09:40, 7 August 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.