Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd 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 was Delete all. These articles are still unsourced, and WP:V / WP:NOR, as core policies, are not negotiable. All but one of the "keep" or "merge" opinions do not address this issue. As to the merger proposals, unsourced content should not be merged, but Fbv65edel has provided links to similar, sourced content that could be. Sandstein 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Also nominated:

Nearly, three months on, there has been no attempt to source the pages at all - the only thing sourced throughout the set of five is the cutlist from OotP. As it stands now, it's still the original research I nominated first time around. Will (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject adequately covered by Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film).--Addhoc 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The HP WikiProject is dealing with these articles. There is no need to bring them here. [add link WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Differences] – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll go a little further than that and request that this AfD is put on hold as we are currently discussing the information. A large percentage of the WPHP agree the much of the information should be deleted/relevant info should be merged to film articles (this has come out through past discussions on this). We're right in the middle of talking about this. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a group decided thing? I guess not...well, withdraw if we can, delete if not, not notable. Judgesurreal777 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete because these entries have zero real-world context. There are always, always going to be changes in the adaptation of a source material for creative and conventional reasons -- the only notable changes to record should be those covered by published, secondary sources, not what an editor subjectively deems appropriate.  It is original research for an editor who has watched the film and read the book to put 2 and 2 together and determine, "The difference between these pieces of information is notable to belong on Wikipedia!"  I'm looking at the article now, and I see an incredibly insipid difference in hair color.  I can't say that the other changes mean much, either, if there is no real-world context to determine that all these differences mean something except to "It's useful" to Harry Potter fans.  Such differences should belong on a Harry Potter Wikia, not on this encyclopedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Differences in hair color are not the differences we are negotiating keeping. We are debating differences such as the absence of a major character, or a major change in the plot, which should all, IMO, be condensed to one or two paragraphs in the main film article. Lots of other book-to-film articles note differences in plot and we're just following that standard. No, we're not going to merge them and note the fact that Filch says "Caught in the act!" in the second film, while really Ernie Macmillan says it in the book. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with determining the absence of a major character or a major change in plot is that subjective arguments are thrown around. That's why such changes need to be noted by secondary, independent sources, not editors who are Harry Potter fans.  If changes are so notable in the real world, then we can cite them with the filmmakers' perspective or reliable outsiders' perspectives.  Debating without citation is just inconclusive because there is no real-world context that determines the scope of differences and changes, which is near limitless, such as hair color.  The recent Featured Articles about films do not make such indiscriminate comparisons -- 300 (film), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) and Jurassic Park (film) are such examples.  Recent Good Articles without these Differences sections include Hairspray (2007 film), The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Memento (film), A Beautiful Mind (film), and Road to Perdition.  The latter has a writing section that has cited information about the changes from the graphic novel to the film.  The Seeker: The Dark is Rising and Fight Club (film) are other such examples.  It is completely possible to back the writing process from the source material to the film with citations; contributions by editors after comparing the two personally reflect zero significance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, because well-organized articles concerning devastantingly notable film and book, passed an earlier nomination, and as for sources in something like this the book and film are obviously the sources and millions of readers and moviegoers could vouch for this evidence. Also, other references do exist:, , , , , , , .  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These are not reliable sources -- these are fan sites. This is reflected in its history.  Per WP:RS, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."  Anyone can publish a page like that and cite it to be used on Wikipedia -- that's why we have these standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the additional sources, Factmonster.com does not seem to exude authority. Additionally, the web page based on FreeWebs.com is a personally published page, not a reliable source, either.  The article from Associated Content would possibly be appropriate for implementation into the film article, not this spun-off sub-page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a fansite does not automaticaly make it unreliable. The Lexicon's reliability has been testified to by Rowling herself. Will (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But is it an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, like mainstream newspapers, magazines, journals, academic studies? It's still a personal webpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous AfD's already pointed to a strong merge, and since this topic is already discussed in an editorial process, I endorse keep for now with a necessary merge rather sooner than later. – sgeureka t•c 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but don't close the discussion. Editors outside the Harry Potter project have the right to have their voice heard, and not it's here it should stay here until the normal period expires. Discussions at the project could, of course, be taken into account by the closing admin. - fchd 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was simply saying it would make things a whole lot easier if there wasn't a strong voice of dissent or disagreement from the project -- if we all agreed on one thing it would make things organized. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, because some movies do not yet have a book/film differences section on their page. Libertyernie2 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to merge content that is not backed by authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand? The only contributors here have been the editors themselves, and it's not encyclopedic to let them decide for themselves, after comparing two different resources, what differences to note between the two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if you can find multible HP fansites with information, it can be in the Wikipedia page, but as a section, not as its own page. This is very important info to include in the films' pages, however. harry potter book movie differences - Google Search Libertyernie2 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also this article from Digital Spy, a reputable science fiction publication. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen that article before, and I think that it would be acceptable to use. Most of the resources provided, however, do not seem to meet reliable source criteria.  I would suggest using the DS citation to create the appropriate sections (Writing seems best).  But on the whole, this article's content does not warrant encyclopedic existence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. We've just started to write a very condensed version of the articles on subpages of WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Differences. For Order of the Phoenix, I found a great source at Salon.com, an interview with the screenwriter, in which he discusses the reasons for cutting a number of scenes, as well as Rowling's views on film changes. MTV wrote about the change in Kreacher's role. Miranda Richardson commented in a red carpet interview for movie 4 about the cutting of her character in the fifth. So there are a number of sources which document the changes, which we will use to write two to three paragraphs, approximately, to make a new section in the film articles. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We've basically completed primary drafts of the cutting down of information. See subpages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for our planned merges of each article to its film article.. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to the respective film pages in a separate section. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - the film and book are notable, however the subject of the article - their comparison - isn't sufficiently notable. Addhoc 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (duplicate)


 * Delete (edit conflict)existing articles, and merge the drafts shown above into the appropriate film articles. As the main author of four of the drafts, I can tell you that very little content was retained from the difference articles, so there is no GFDL-compliance issue with deleting them.  Happy‑melon 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Request early close to allow this merge to take place without unnecessary delay, given that the only Keep vote above is based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL/WP:INTERESTING, misrepresentation of WP:RS and WP:N, and judicious application of WP:NOTAGAIN. Happy‑melon 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that this is a case of WP:SNOWBALL -- there's been merge recommendations, which is distinctly different from delete recommendations. There's no need to rush the AfD process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Happy-melon is (necessarily) suggesting the articles be deleted -- just that they at least be redirected to their film articles, and a new section be added to the film articles, as written on the subpages linked above. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, there is no likely AfD outcome that will not result in this replacement occuring. Delete --> articles are deleted, the drafts are inserted into the relevant film articles.  Merge --> articles are redirected, the drafts are inserted into the relevant film articles.  Redirect --> same as for merge.  The only outcome that will not result in these articles being blanked is Keep, which I have explained above is extremely unlikely.  Given that this is almost certain to the outcome of the debate, why wait unnecessarily?  Happy‑melon 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Trim and Merge: It would be better to remove the enormous amounts of access details and put a small sentence summary of the differences in the films section such as for Order of the Phoenix; In the book Umbridge was responsible for sending for the Demontors to Harry in order to discredit him while in the movie Dumbledore suggested to Harry that Voldemort was responsible.

So my point is no access detail, no need for seperate pages and a still an appropriate way for inexperinced readers to understand the minor changes between the books and movies and perhaps to not include any small or irrevant facts of things that can be explained in a character bio. As a last resort I would choose to Transwiki it to the Harry Potter Wiki and would urge other people who want to remove this stuff to consider that option. -Adv193 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, merge and trim. It is important to have such an article. it displays the difference between the books and the films, and hence the interests in the viewer vs reader, which is a very important film technique, especially in harry potter. Since harry potter books are so long, its important that they only extract the parts within the books that appeal to the viewer, and more importantly the subject audience, -(after all they are only making these films to make money and win awards). If they include all the lessons, and conversations within harry potter, frankly it would bore the audience to death. an example is the 4th book, where the middle of the book, which was a degraded cliche, was mainly cut out, and the 3 tasks, and the yule ball were shown, as they appeal to the viewer. If we delete this section we will be delete an important dimension to the anaylisis of harry potter. addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 22:49, 18 September 2007 (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.