Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of differences between the book and film adaptations of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Obsessive Wonkacruft minutiae; nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge The first encyclopedia was written by obsessives. Merge to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film) Joaquin Murietta 05:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- obsessive Wonkacruft? ..maybe. Interesting? definitely. --Mysidia (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Good article about a major book and two major films. CalJW 06:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge important differences to movie articles. This is an excellent, detailed, and interesting list, but I think many of the differences are too minor to note here. Eric119 06:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume the "OR" means "Original Research". From No original research:
 * Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
 * That means we're welcome to take info from primary sources (aka the book and films), put it together, and organize it. --rob 18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting comparison, and I haven't seen or read either work ;). --ShaunMacPherson 07:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Strangely compelling reading while I'm supposed to be at work. CambridgeBayWeather 08:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found this incredibly useful and interesting. Cnwb 08:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Joaquin Murietta. Who's going to look up a title like that?   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   10:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Joaquin Murietta. An interesting article that deserves a far more accessible title! Sliggy 12:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep or merge as per above. Roodog2k (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, aids readers to understand how the work has been reinterpreted. Kappa 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong merge. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but retitle. 23skidoo 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but transwiki to Wikibooks or somewhere, because this isn't necessarily something you find in an encyclopedia. Tito xd 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and retitle. Useful and too large to merge with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly suggest transwiki to Wikibooks, beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Summarize a few of the major points, and provide a link. --FuriousFreddy 04:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cool article.  >:  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist 05:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film). Such lists don't deserve their own article, but the info is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I really think this deserves its own page. It's too big to be on the movie pages. Also, definitely needs to be renamed.- JustPhil 17:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all of this verifiable information about famous works. Do not merge as this information applies equally to three different articles (the book, and 2 movies).  Merging it into another article, would inevitably mean the comparison information would become redundant in each of the three articles.  The suggestion of the merging it into the article about the 2005 film is especiallly bad.  The 2005 film is a re-adapatation of the book, *not* a sequel to the 1971 film.  Hence comparisons of the 1971 film to the book, would not belong in an article about the 2005 film.  Information in this table is simply beyond the scope of any of the three other articles.  --rob 18:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this on its own page please even though it was many years ago we discussed this as a class once and this could be helpful for teachers now and later who read this to their students and want to talk about these difference so why erase it or move it really it is fine where it is Yuckfoo 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very interesting article. Carioca 23:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting, but possibly convert into an image format? --Sb2k4 15:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 01:47:21 Z
 * Keep. --BMF81 10:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (Ibaranoff24 23:48, 6 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.