Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter trolling (second nomination)
- 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 of the debate was delete →Raul654 07:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was closed as a no consensus merge, but this has been disputed. Relisting. I cast no vote. I have no opinion on this article. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not sure if this AfD is necissary. The article has been redeleted, again as No Merge was done by anyone, Moink saw that the AfD was a delete consensus, and the VfU has no consensus thus far, so it has no reason to be undeleted. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been undeleted. The solution to an unperformed merge is to perform the merge, not to delete. Moink uses a different definition of consensus than the one some other use--as he remarks himself: "I guess there is no consensus on consensus". --Tony SidawayTalk 02:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Putting this back here is perfectly understandable Ambi 02:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (ambi said more... the resulting off-topic discussion was moved to the talk page)
- Delete. A transient, unremarkable, completely unimportant "phenomenon". No need for the article to either outlive or outshine the vandalism it commemorates. - Nunh-huh 03:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nunh-huh. I, too, read the earlier AfD as a clear consensus to delete, but I understand that Tony is posting this here in the interests of transparency. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This page has been merged to Harry Potter 6 so Tony could undelete it... we've made a deal to undo the merge if the consensus here is to delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete.. undo the merge.. consensus to delete.. forget it. My head is gonna pop like I'm in Scanners if I try to piece that together. ;-) Fernando Rizo T/C 03:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I reversed the second out-of-process deletion prior to the merge--it's hard to paste wiki from a deleted article. The merge was, I freely admit, performed largely to dissuade further delete warring while we (or rather you--I'm not going to vote) decide what to do about this article. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like everyone else said. Also, before you merge with a page it's polite to discuss the merger with the page in question. Cmouse 05:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this was ever encyclopedic, it's not anymore. --Apyule 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is on a an utterly non-notable, non-encyclopedic phenomenon. It should be deleted, but within process. Deleting this article the first time was out of process since that AFD debate had been closed with a reasonable "no consensus" judgment call. It was a fair call by Tony Sidaway to undelete, and bring this back to AFD. VFU is not yet the place to dispute "keep" results (it might be in the near future), and just deleting it so that it can go to VFU (where about 50% to not delete is required) instead of AFD (where about 33% to not delete is required) is not really right either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to see this merged into the article on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which it pertains to. While trolling is non-notable in itself, this sparked merchandise, and caused considerable controversy within the fandom (fancruft isn't a reason for deletion). I agree this doesn't warrant a seperate entry, though and wouldn't particularly be upset to see it go either. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the HP6 article, as per my previous vote. Since the merge appears to have already taken place, a redirect is required. -- Joolz 12:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good article, or leave it merged I guess. Kappa 14:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A poor article. I see no change that compels a reconsideration of my first vote. Moink, incidentally, is a woman— a Canadian aerospace engineer at MIT.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 15:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, same reasons as everyone else, same reason I gave in the last vote. --DocSigma 16:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, all the same reasons as everyone else. Bart133 (t) 22:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and dismiss the obfuscatory merge. It's about a bunch of trolls. Why don't we serve them dinner? -Splashtalk 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the useful content, then Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No Ryan, you cannot merge and then delete as it violates the GFDL. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think so, Redwolf, although the argument is often made. See [1]—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That applies to history merges. We are definitely NOT doing that though. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the argument is intended to make clear that the vote "Merge and delete" is indeed a valid one to make, Redwolf24. It is sometimes held that it is not valid because keeping author attribution is required by GFDL, whereas a page delete would seem to remove trace of it. However, this is not so. One can merge an article into another and still preserve author attribution in one of two ways: by performing a history merge, or by listing the authorship(s) in the Talk page. The history merge method is somewhat disliked by admins, because of it's laboriousness (and, I'm given to understand, its irreversibility). However, the operational difficulty of one method is no argument that the "Merge & delete" vote is invalid. If Ryan wants to vote that, he is perfectly eligible to do so. Kind regards—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 12:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, technically he can vote "merge & delete" but those alternative means of preserving attribution history are all laborious and error-prone. Unless someone makes a very strong case for why I should go to all that trouble, many closing admins (myself included) are going to ignore the "delete" side of that vote. A "vote" unadorned by comment or explanation gets low weight. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, I'm quite aware of that Rossami—I did read this comment that you'd linked from that discussion I linked for Redwolf. I was here concerned mainly to dispel the notion that it is invalid or disallowed; it is not. Incidentally, and I'd understand if you'd like to take this to a talk page, it seems to me that the decision to disregard the delete part of the vote is one that is usually possible only because the vote is rare; I imagine that if I were closing a hypothetical AfD and was faced with 10 clear M&D votes and nothing else, and all specifically asking for a history merge, I'd be bound to honor those wishes, however unadorned the votes (as I would be if, say, they were all unadorned keep votes). Not that this has practical relevance here, of course.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, technically he can vote "merge & delete" but those alternative means of preserving attribution history are all laborious and error-prone. Unless someone makes a very strong case for why I should go to all that trouble, many closing admins (myself included) are going to ignore the "delete" side of that vote. A "vote" unadorned by comment or explanation gets low weight. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the argument is intended to make clear that the vote "Merge and delete" is indeed a valid one to make, Redwolf24. It is sometimes held that it is not valid because keeping author attribution is required by GFDL, whereas a page delete would seem to remove trace of it. However, this is not so. One can merge an article into another and still preserve author attribution in one of two ways: by performing a history merge, or by listing the authorship(s) in the Talk page. The history merge method is somewhat disliked by admins, because of it's laboriousness (and, I'm given to understand, its irreversibility). However, the operational difficulty of one method is no argument that the "Merge & delete" vote is invalid. If Ryan wants to vote that, he is perfectly eligible to do so. Kind regards—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 12:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That applies to history merges. We are definitely NOT doing that though. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think so, Redwolf, although the argument is often made. See [1]—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trollcruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep I voted against the article which had the trollish phrase as a title, becuase that was a spoiler. I see no reason to delete this. Septentrionalis 02:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (rename?) I find this article both interesting and informative...and it's about a real phenomenon, not a minor fictional character or an episode in a TV series. Guettarda 00:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so every true event deserves an article? My grandpa killed 10 red russians before they killed him, should I write an article about it because its interesting and true? It's still OR and UE. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it's not notable. Deserves maybe a sentence or two in the article on the novel, if that. Tuf-Kat 03:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Uppland 07:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The page title gives no warning to the content - I had no desire to learn this plot element; spoilers were not present. At the least this page can be merged into the spoiler protected section of the main HP page for this book. Toby Douglass 11:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So a merge would be ok with you? -- Joolz 14:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to merge it into Internet troll as the following sentence: Deliberately revealing the ending of a recent popular movie or book, such as the latest Harry Potter novel, as a spoiler. I wasn't aware that it was up for discussion here again, as I saw it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. I think merging is still the best solution, and the redirect would do no harm. --Michael Snow 21:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, we now have two merge targets, I think the HP6 article is better suited because the bridge incident was not online. -- Joolz 00:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Trolling is basically online by definition, and that's why I think the redirect to Internet troll is better, given the title we're redirecting from. The bridge incident is not really trolling, it's a stunt. It might warrant mentioning in some appropriate article if someone cares to salvage it, as it's actually much closer to real significance than anything else in this article. --Michael Snow 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael: You didn't "merge" anything, and I don't know how you missed the AfD notice. —Lifeisunfair 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't miss the AfD notice, but because I came to the article from VfU, I was under the impression that the notice was leftover from the previous discussion. And I did merge, after of course quite significantly condensing the content. Check the history of Internet troll. --Michael Snow 07:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of your edit to Internet troll (quoted above). It's an appropriate addition to the article, but it doesn't remotely constitute a merger. I wouldn't even refer to that sentence as a summary of Harry Potter trolling (the content of which is referenced only in passing). —Lifeisunfair 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the strong sentiment for deleting the page, it's a merger of the concept this page is really about, minus all the stuff people don't consider to be worth keeping. --Michael Snow 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm not disputing the appropriateness of your addition to the Internet troll article. It was a reasonable edit, but it doesn't come close to being a "merger." "Strong sentiment for deleting the page" is an argument against merging — not an excuse to change the definition. —Lifeisunfair 20:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand what the people voting delete here have against a merge being performed. Very few people are arguing to keep the article in it's entirety, a merge normally does not keep the article intact in it's entirety, the worthwhile bits (e.g. the bridge incident) gets kept whilst the other parts get cut down, I don't see why people are objecting to this. -- Joolz 23:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the strong sentiment for deleting the page, it's a merger of the concept this page is really about, minus all the stuff people don't consider to be worth keeping. --Michael Snow 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of your edit to Internet troll (quoted above). It's an appropriate addition to the article, but it doesn't remotely constitute a merger. I wouldn't even refer to that sentence as a summary of Harry Potter trolling (the content of which is referenced only in passing). —Lifeisunfair 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't miss the AfD notice, but because I came to the article from VfU, I was under the impression that the notice was leftover from the previous discussion. And I did merge, after of course quite significantly condensing the content. Check the history of Internet troll. --Michael Snow 07:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, we now have two merge targets, I think the HP6 article is better suited because the bridge incident was not online. -- Joolz 00:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge some of this into Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on a permanent basis. A condensed version of the first section (concerning online trolling) would be sufficient, and the banner incident seems notable enough. The radio incident and links needn't make the cut. Of course, all of this is merely my personal opinion. To be clear, I'm voting to turn the page into a redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (with the full history retained, of course), thereby allowing editors to perform (and modify) the merger as they see fit. —Lifeisunfair 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On multiple talk pages and project pages (including this one), Redwolf24 attempted to justify this page's re-deletion by noting that no merger had transpired. Lacking sysop status, how was a "Harry Potter" fan supposed to perform this task, given that the article was deleted less than a day after the AfD debate was closed by Moink? (I directed this question to Redwolf24 in the VfU discussion, but have not yet received a reply. "Something terrible has happened in [this user's] life," so I certainly don't expect one at the present time.) —Lifeisunfair 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to hear the bad news about Redwolf24. Of course there is no speedy criterion "has not been merged yet as required by AfD". The deleting sysop had the option of either performing the merge himself or allowing someone else to do so, or at most relisting on AfD as a disputed AfD close. I decry this recent habit among some sysops of simply speedying articles, without even making any attempt at discussion, because they disagree with another sysop's close. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete HarryPorter Cruft --Aranda56 00:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.