Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page 606

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 delete. Closing early because we already have very clear consensus. Mangojuice^talk 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page 606

Unencyclopedic. This kind of nitpicky trivia really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Djcartwright 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't forget the now orphaned Image:606.gif which I removed because the spoiler warning didn't hide the particular spoiler in that image. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a stand-alone and merge any useful info with the main article. The title, with all due respect, is useless. - Lucky 6.9 02:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Why the hell would this have an article? TJ Spyke 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename I'm not sure if this is the right title for the article, but I think that the Harry_Potter#Legal_injunction controversy, and the subsequent spoiler published here [1], which started the whole thing, deserves a page of its own. Dontdoit 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry folks, this just doesn't belong. RedRollerskate 02:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. How is this relevant to anything? Different editions will have it published on different pages. --Wafulz 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, you mean English is not the only language in the world? JIP | Talk 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate, incredibly derivative cruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete If I have been canvassing the new pages, I would have tagged this with {{db-nonsense}}. --physicq210 05:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Why would a Harry Potter book's page merit its own article? Aaargh. Not Wikipedia-material, for sure. On a Harry Potter fansite, matbe, but not here. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, way too trivial information. JIP | Talk 07:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Hilarious. --Masamage 16:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete please -Markeer 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. This page was deleted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Page_606 and then recreated. Shouldn't we also delete Image:606.gif, too ? -- Beardo 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• This particular topic (and the related controversy of early revelation of this plot point to unsuspecting fans is sufficiently covered in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and related articles. Totally unsuitable for separate article, bad title too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I suspect the so-called fault mentioned in this article is in fact not wrong at all but simply a difference between the US and UK editions of the book. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, you mean the US isn't the only country in the world either? JIP | Talk 17:27, 27 September 2006 (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.