Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.136.26.228 (talk) at 17:13, 20 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary

It copies information all ready existing in the synopsis on the main Half-Blood Prince page. All other information on this page was deemed unnecessary for the main page. Might also be a copyright violation, since it is in essence a condensed version of the book itself rather than a mere summary. Deridolus 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "PLEASE KEEP" at least for a little bit. The information is wonderful and the links to everything else I wanted to re-check saved me days of work. Thank you for it, and PLEASE KEEP. THank you.
  • Keep, preferably speedily, and rename. The original article is too long as it is; that's why this was spun out into its own article. JYolkowski // talk 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, but only if the more descriptive version of each chapter is the one that is used, otherwise Keep. - Steggall 02:46 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Do NOT merge soon, as the entire artical is a spoiler and people looking for information on the book itself and not plot twists could eisily wind up knowing much more than they wanted if it was put on the same page as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince--RobLance // talk 06:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page does serve a different purpose to other pages with plot summaries. This page should optimally contain 32 kB of text summarising the plot; Harry Potter (plot) should summarise the plot of all 6 books so far in 32 kB and the actual book article should simply have a brief, 15-line plot summary, focussing on other aspects of impact, etc. --Oldak Quill 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is an international phenomenon and is fair use. Keep Wiki's chapter by chapter summary separate. It serves as a service on a subject where so much conjucture and half truth exists elsewhere. --Kcswampfox 05:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure this doesn't fit with naming conventions... at the very least it should probably be moved, although I'm not sure exactly where. This may be overdoing it, though... --L33tminion (talk) 05:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this crap. (unsigned from 68.192.171.208 who also deleted all the votes above from the VFD)
  • Delete. There are no other full chapter summaries for any of the other HP books, and there need not be one for this entry either. A short book summary should suffice.

--Could

  • Delete -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a full exposition of the entire plot of the Harry Potter saga at Harry Potter (plot): this article will be merged into that one once it is safe to do so (unless obviously the full plot is split up into separate articles for each book for size). —Phil | Talk 08:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Phil. This is not a condensed version of the book, unless it is reusing most of its phrases directly from the book, so I doubt that the copyright argument above has any merit.-gadfium 08:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not doing any harm whatsoever. The creation of a summary is covered under fair use. -koolman2 09:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. (summary) rather than -Full Plot Summary. Radiant_>|< 10:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- for now, but name it plot summary instead of full plot summary and link the content from the title's main article instead of having plot summaries of different lengths in two different articles --Mysidia 12:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I personally don't think that something this detailed is really necessary for an encylopedia article. How much is enough? One 32kb article per chapter? OTOH, the existence of a bloated article like this may be enough to prevent well-intentioned fans from bloating up the main Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which really was getting too unwieldy with all these unnecessary details. --Deathphoenix 13:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-- I don't have 30 bucks, nor the time to read the book. Whoever started this I commend you. Pacific Coast Highway 15:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Please keep this. I think it is a valuable resource and a great companion for anyone who is really interested in this Harry Potter book. It does no harm and if it can not be kept, than it should be merged with the main article. I stand strongly by my opinion. --Cameron 16:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that this should be kept for now - it may well be pared down over time though.Rubextablet 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that people aren't voting according to the rules. What we should be voting on is whether or not this is encyclopaedic and belongs on Wikidedia. In my view, it doesn't fit either requirement. There's no precedent on Wikipedia for this type of super-detailed, chapter-by-chapter synopsis and it just goes overboard in my opinion. If you can't afford to buy the book, you can borrow it from a library or a friend or wait until the movie comes out on TV. Wikipedia is not here to provide free e-books. My vote is to delete with prejudice--meaning that we don't want to set a precedent here; the brief overviews/synopses we have for other major works (including The Satanic Verses, Huck Finn, Pride and Prejudice, and even the other Harry books) are plenty. Exploding Boy 16:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Tentative Keep Exploding Boy raises legitimate points. If the chapter by chapter plot summary can be argued to remain on Wikipedia then by all means remain. Personal opinion though, I find it extremely useful to find what each chapter is about, a sort of... table of contents if you will. --takagawa-kun 19:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of votes as of now. 25 keep, 3 Merge, 4 delete. Keeping the article holds firm majority --takagawa-kun 19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Excessively long and detailed plot summaries are just not appropriate. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, until it can be satisfactorily merged with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, then redirect or delete. Hermione1980 22:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after a few weeks. Supporters are fanatics. I'm sure the majority are kids. Please, if you want to read a super-long summary, go and read the book. Why deprive yourself of the pleasure? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book summary network. And it's not a network to provide free plot details for those who simply don't want to buy the book. Exploding Boy's point is well taken. Mandel 22:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A brief summary of the plot is fair use. A detailed description of pretty much every significant event is a copyright violation. ed g2s • talk 23:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is copyvivio, then we don't even need to vote on it. Quote from Wikipedia's fair use article: "Conversely, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985), the use of less than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a news magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial." Mandel 23:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • This isn't even close to copyvio. In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the defendent copied verbatim "the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript." The proper analogy would be if we had a page where we copied the pages with the murder in Chapter 27. But I don't think I see any quotes longer than six words long on the entire page. Here's 471 U.S. 539, the case referenced, for context. (Disclaimer: IANAL) --Arcadian 01:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this: in Twin Peaks Productions v. Publications International (91 Civ. 0626, S.D.N.Y., November 1991) the District Court found a book publisher guilty for infringing a film's copyright after it produced substantial detailed summaries in which it "paraphrased substantial portions". The conclusion of the court? "A detailed summary of plot constitutes an abridgment that exceeds what is required to serve any legitimate purpose". If Rowling files a lawsuit, I'll like to see people who voted 'keep' chip in. Mandel 05:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
          • In fact, arguments like "i don't have time to read the book so this told me exactly what happened saving me time" and "I don't have 30 bucks, nor the time to read the book" (I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just saying what was said before) pretty much would make their case. Maybe I sound paranoid, but this page could be presented as an exhibit in Rowling v. Wikimedia Foundation or a similar case that no one wants to see. I change my vote to strong delete. --Titoxd 06:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge with main article in a few weeks when the whole mania has died off.--TexasDex 00:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Harry Potter (plot), after six books I think it would be easy to follow the pattern -Acjelen 00:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't CliffsNotespedia. tregoweth 00:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep

--Potatoeman57

  • This is just a lawsuit waiting to happen. The book hasn't been for sale for a week, and basically, we're providing a way to find out what happens in the book without having to buy it. The only thing that Scholastic has to do is to prove that customers didn't have to read the book because this article was too detailed, and they'll be more than happy to file suit for lost revenues. I strongly urge caution when dealing with things that could financially hurt Wikipedia, as is the case with this article, and I vote to delete(read above), or at a bare minimum, summarize, at least for now. --Titoxd 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if not a copyvio. —Ashley Y 02:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't see any problem with copyright, but this is not encyclopedia. Why don't all these Harry Potter fans set up a Wikicity where this kind of article would be far more appropriate--nixie 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and Merge with Harry Potter (plot). None of the other books (and I don't just mean Harry Potter here) has an article like this. If you want to know what happens in this much detail, read the book. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 03:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What harm does it do where it is? There are several works of fiction that receive just as thorough treatment in Wikipedia. Here is a whole article dedicated to a single chapter of one book: Mark 16. — David Remahl 03:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is interesting and does not provide enough information as to completely take away the point of reading the book. Heru Jameson 03:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC) Heru Jameson
  • Comment: I agree completely. I've read through the entire summary, and just got the book today, and started reading it. The summary only provides the main parts of the book, and none of the back-story or hidden clues. By the way, three of the other books in this series have similar LONG plot summaries, although they aren't chapter-by-chapter: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. -koolman2 04:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and Merge with Harry Potter (plot). For now, let's keep it for everyone to edit the most important plot points in and useless stuff out. I agree with Exploding Boy, this is an encyclopedia and the rules must be upheld.--Janarius 04:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As tregoweth unintentionally pointed out, this is no more copyvio than Cliffs' Notes is. Nightwatch 07:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the works that Cliffs'Notes deal with are out of copyright. The argument used many times is that this article is useful. Useful for what? Mandel 08:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and merge with Half-Blood Prince I see no reason for books and movies to have separate summary pages. If you want to get that detailed, use outside links, such as with all three of the Lord of the Rings pages, which have succinct summaries in 3 paragraphs or so. It would be one thing if this summary included detailed analysis of themes or something like that, but it's just a blow by blow, completely unencyclopedic. James 08:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and merge per James. There is nothing notable here which a short summary could not accomplish -Harmil 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I feel that we need to inform a higher authority, eg. the Board of Trustees about this. If a copyvio lawsuit could potentially occur, it's only fair that those people who are truly involved be informed, not us lay Wikipedians. If they decide to delegate the final judgment to us, then the decision of this VfD will suffice. Mandel 11:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've voted, however I would like to second the above. Voting should never take priority over the legal status of WP, and if the Board feels that this article constitutes a copyvio sufficient to initiate legal action, then it should be removed post-haste. Personally, I feel that it is questionable, and would seek the publisher's permission at a minimum (which is unlikely to be granted). -Harmil 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Plot summaries to address the issue of summaries in general. I think we definitely need a policy on this, especially if there are legal ramifications. James 15:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Condense and Merge to whichever page is deemed most appropriate. I'm not so worried about its encyclopedic value, more the copyright problems of placing such a large derivative work online. — Asbestos | Talk 15:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and Merge; as it is, this is legally... dodgy. James F. (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce to 32K A slight modification of my previous vote. I've put in a request at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Book_summaries for to get guidance. To make sure we're all on the same page, right now the summary is 8235 words, 50 kilobytes, and approximately 4% of the source text. As you know if you've read above, I support the existence of this page, but I'll agree that the page is too long as is. If I had to say where I'd draw the line, in my opinion, the 32 kilobyte page limit (about 5000 words) seems like a natural and sustainable solution. If you're voting to delete because of copyvio concerns because the summary is too long, please indicate approximately what length of summary constitutes copyvio in your opinion. --Arcadian 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat strong delete. My eternal hatred of Harry Potter not withstanding, there is absolutely no need for such a redundant article on wikipedia. This is not a summary, it's a freaking rewrite. We can all go and buy the book if we wanted, or borrow from a friend if we can't afford it. -Hmib 16:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and Merge as stated above. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_-_Full_Plot_Summary&oldid=19239300"