Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot holes in Harry Potter

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. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot holes in Harry Potter

Barely encyclopedic fancruft, intrinsically and irreparably original research. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-encylopaedic. --Andymarczak 12:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced original research. -- Whpq 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only 2 examples are given, and neither are really true plot holes in the sense that neither of them shows contradiction or paradox or breach of internal continuity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if I thought this WP:OR merited an article in some fashion, there apparently really aren't any major plot holes in the books, therefore rendering it doubly deletable. Dina 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If an actual source (like Rowling's website) can be found for these plot holes they deserve the briefest of mentions/links from the main harry potter articles. --Coroebus 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteOR. Gobawoo 16:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dina hit a bullseye with his/her take on the matter. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dina. Danny Lilithborne 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until some proper content can be found for this page (although there are accusations of plot holes in Harry Potter, neither of the two examples on the article are plot holes) we shouldn't have it. Cynical 17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All the arguments against seem to be based on fancruft not fact, if the article is small it should be expanded not deleted.Simondrake 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment On the other hand, you are the creator of this article, yet have not expanded on it. If this information is worthy of entry at all, it should form part of the main article about the book. Andymarczak 07:23, 24 October 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.