Why did Rowling intend to kill Arthur in book five?

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 180415

Catlady:
> Now we know that the much-speculated character who got a reprieve was
> Arthur Weasley in OoP, not anyone in DH. He was supposed to die from
> Nagini's attack. That would show that war is hell. But I can't imagine
> what the story would gain from it that's greater than or equal to what
> it gains from Harry having saved Arthur's life.

Pippin:
The story could have gone much the same way, provided that Harry
thinks he could have saved Arthur if he'd gotten help sooner. In fact
he'd have an even stronger incentive for trying to get to Sirius ASAP.
"Look, Mr. Weasley's DEAD because nobody helped him in time. I'VE
GOT TO GO NOW!" 

Arthur, not Lupin, would have been with him in the forest, and 
since Molly would still have been alive there'd be no nagging
questions about Tonks's absence. Also, Arthur was more like
a father to Harry than Lupin was, and Harry would have had more
time to miss him. But I understand why  she felt getting rid of
the most decent father in the books was too much.

It would have given Ginny more depth as a character if she'd been
struggling with grief, and a nice contrast if she'd handled it differently
than Cho. 

Does Ginny really hex everyone? Or just people who annoy her?
Presumably she grew out of it as James did. How come no one seems
to think that naive readers will be confused about the nature
of evil if the bad guys aren't perfectly bad, but think
they'll be confused about the nature of goodness if the good guys
aren't perfectly good?

Pippin
agrees that  the romance was better in GoF but thinks it's because
Rowling came up against the constraints of what she felt was appropriate
for her child readers vs what older teens in wartime would be doing