Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 8

Cane
Is this worthy of an article? I realize that we have articles on numerous generic things that appear in canon, but surely this is pushing it? Harry once threw a stick at either Crabbe or Goyle (can't quite recall which). Should we have an article on sticks? A line should be drawn somewhere. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:35, January 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it should be redirected to "Walking stick", but wanted to ask someone/anyone else before doing so. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:56, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think that's unworthy, just notify there's random stuff like Unidentified bluebird and Unidentified Black Death Eater at the Battle of Hogwarts (II). Donut4  || TALK PAGE 14:00, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is definitely not worthy of an article. It's not even a real object appearing in the book, and is only mentioned when Harry thinks Wood is a cane. Flabshoe1 (talk) 19:40, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes
Whilst I admit that as it currently stands this page is just a duplicate of another page, and thus will need a rename, conjecture tag and rewrite, I feel that if we can have a page for one single Horcrux mentioned obscurely in one interview, there should perhaps be a page for seven notable, if not crucial, Horcruxes seen throughout the series. A link could go on the Horcrux page to this page and all information pertaining to Voldemort's Horcruxes can be summarised on that page and expanded upon in this one. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:57, March 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what I was thinking more or less. Why does it need a rename? Where is there conjecture on the page? If it was okay on the previous article, what's wrong with it on this one? Why does it need a rewrite? Jdogno7 (talk) 13:09, March 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * It needs a conjecture tag because "Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes" isn't a name used directly in the series for the things. Therefore, it's something called a "conjectural title" - the title was made by a user on the wiki so that it'd be easier to find. The rename is because the "Marvolo" in the title is unneccessary. I'm pretty sure the article is all right as is and thus probably won't need a rewrite at all, but some other editors might be tweaking little things along the way as seen fit by them. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:18, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Well since Tom Riddle's Horcruxes linked to the main Horcrux article page, that was the closest name I could use that wasn't used by another article. Is there a way to fix that? Jdogno7 (talk) 23:36, March 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's decided that the article can stay, I'll fix that. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:41, March 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jdogno7 (talk) 00:44, March 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * What could be done is keep the page Horcrux with general information about the horcruxes and move the informations about Voldemort's horcruxes that is in the text Horcrux to mix with the text Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes and make it better to doesn't be deleted. So the wikia would have following pages: 1) Horcrux: a page with general information about the horcruxes; 2) and pages with information about the wizards who created horcruxes which are: 2a) Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes and... 2b) Herpo the Foul's Horcrux. Andre G. Dias (talk) 08:36, March 2, 2014 (Brazil)


 * What happened to my page? When was it deleted?

Jdogno7 (talk) 06:59, March 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought pages weren't to be deleted until a consensus was reached unless the pages were fanonical; this page, while currently little more than a duplicate of another page, serves the potential to be a very erstwhile and useful page if the suggestions listed above were taken. However, others seem to disagree, so this is the place to provide reasons why the page should be outright deleted. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:08, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * "Erstwhile" means "past, former". If this page gets deleted it will indeed thereby become erstwhile. — RobertATfm (talk) 07:42, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Ravenclaw House
Please! Delete this page which I have wrongly created when I tried to do a " Redirect page " but it didn't work. Andre G. Dias (talk) 01:54, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed by Cubs Fan2007 (as can be seen in the History Log page), so I think we can forget about and remove the Category "Candidates for deletion" of the redirect page Ravenclaw House. Andre G. Dias (talk) 14:10, April 21, 2014 (UTC)

Deletion category going-over
It might be worth to go over the items tagged for deletion - many of them are redirects to talk pages or tagged a few months ago with no discussion. Thanks! MinorStoop  09:08, April 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * To my mind, "Candidates for deletion" (or whatever it's called on any particular wiki) should be a strictly temporary category; pages should be in it for two weeks at most, after which either the delete tag or the article itself (whichever is warranted) should be deleted. That's my take anyway. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:42, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Game Boy Color (console)
A page for the Game Boy Color was created in the past, but deemed to be unnecessary and redirected to Game Boy (which is an in-universe article). Unless circumstances have changed, I think this decision should be upheld here as well. (I would like to note, however, that I fully support the idea of splitting the video game pages up by console, as what appears to be currently happening. Many of the different adaptations of the series are completely different games from console to console. If nothing else, this will allow us to get rid of the cumbersome noting of which version applies in the "Appearances" section of articles by simply linking directly to the correct version of the game.) -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:44, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

I think in turn this page in disambuguation page.

Harry Potter and the Misadventures of the Muggle

 * (discussion moved to Category talk:Non-notable articles)

Order of the Phoenix Society (fansite)
Order of the Phoenix Society is a fansite (like other fan sites)which is composed of news, articles, polls etc. This is not a fan fiction. PotterOrder (talk) 06:42, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

I like to suggest making Fred and George wands a disemboded page, it can still be of some value.

Your's Truly Valenthyne (talk) 03:09, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

Ghost Plots and Red Herrings

 * This page was tagged for deletion at 19:48, July 16, 2013 . But ghost plots and red herrings, as described in this article, are a common feature for people studying a fiction work to have to be wary of and warned of. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

JKR mentioned Ghost Plots here - it is her term for subplots that did not make the last edit. JKR defines the term and gives examples. The reason red herrings is included in the title (that part can be changed) is because depending on when a subplot is removed, it may be difficult to totally scrub it out of the book. JKR gives an example of that too. JKR also gives examples of subplots which were removed but a detail of it has been added on purpose. There are other ghost plots not mentioned which can be added later as people find them - often from JKR interviews. Though, as of the rules, they should be known ghost plots.

There are whole entries referring to pairs of shoes or food mentioned in passing and other things that don't really need their own entry, which there is no more than a sentence or two known about it. This is a term JKR created. JKR not only mentioned Ghost Plots on PottermoreBold text but devoted a whole entry to it. (Vaudree (talk) 01:19, January 26, 2016 (UTC))

Hogwarts School brooms

 * A discussion like this really should have been posted to the article's talkpage so that it can be found easily. The talkpage of the category that lists pages for deletion isn't exactly a place I would be using to call for the non-deletion/deletion of pages...
 * Also, a page that doesn't link to other pages, and doesn't have any inbound links to the page, is a valid reason to delete a page, as it may be the page was created erroneously and wasn't picked up at the time of creation to be removed.
 * PS: As a sysop, instead of starting this discussion, you could have just went ahead and removed the deletion tag after improving the page, no offence. --Sajuuk 08:30, February 10, 2016 (UTC)