Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction


 * 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not conform to Film Style Guidelines relative to Adaptations. It does not provide film context for adaptation differences between the sources/origins and the film, appears to be mostly original research and synthesis, and therefore lacks pertinent reliable and verifiable sources. Any valid "differences" should be worked into the Production sections of existing film article to enhance it rather than treating them here in a separate article. Jim Dunning | talk  18:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis and OR -- no indication that differences between the film and reality as a whole (i.e. beyond the film's protagonist) have been the subject of third-party work; this is a synth-y amalgamation. --EEMIV (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When particularly notable films are made based on true stories they are inevitably compared to the true facts, and this film is no different. If there is OR in the article it should be removed and replaced with sourced commentary from reliable sources (e.g.   ). JulesH (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently synthetic Sceptre (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? Are you saying it is impossible to source an article of this type?  Why?  JulesH (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comparing two versions of the same story always involved synthesising and original research. Sceptre (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not when reliable sources, like the ones I linked above, have made the comparison for us it doesn't. JulesH (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are certainly reliable, but are they relevant? Although the writing of the articles appears to be sparked by the popularity of the film, they are about the actual escape, not really a discussion of the film. They may be helpful to the Stalag Luft III article, however.
 * Keep as nicely sourced comparison of FACT versus FILM. Lends itself quite nicely to a reader's understanding of how filmmakers "bend" reality in order to make sales. Any issues with Adaptations can be addressed by WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced encyclopedic article. Requires cleanup, not deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into the main article on the film. I would support that, as i think having it separately is duplicative, and the length of the main article not excessive. But that's not a discussion for AfD. DGG (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding views that the article is "nicely sourced": Actually take a look at the article and count how many "facts" or "assertions" there are relative to how many of them actually have a "source", much less a verifiable source, attached to them. Consider the Allies Characters section first, which depends on only two inline sources . There is nothing about Alvin Vogtle in either of those articles (obituaries about Eric Foster, a technical advisor for the film), so that set of assertions lacks sources. Neither source mentions the kind of motorcycle the fictional character Hilts rode in the film, or anything about it being anachronistic, much less how or why it was decided to use a 1960s era model bike in the production (if indeed it is a 1960s model). Neither obituary references the assertion that McQueen insisted on the motorcycle scenes despite lack of historical basis. The assertion about Hilts's likelihood of execution rather than solitary confinement appears to be complete speculation. In fact, only the last two sentences in the Hilts passage are supported by credible sources and should just be covered in the film article (which they are already). In the next five listed characters with any kind of content attached to them (a character list is already in the film article and does not need duplication here) there are at a minimum 10 assertions, of which only three seem to be supported by a source of some kind. Of those three, one is completely unsourced in itself and is not a reliable source. This is in only one section of the article. There are literally dozens of other assertions in the rest of the article and only five non-inline citations cover them. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing if four of those five sources actually support the very few passages to which they're attached since they are hardcopy and not online. However, I doubt that the creator of this article has them either since they and the related material were shifted from the main article; I would not attribute a source to material I'm adding to an article – even if I'm just copying it from another Wikipedia article – without first verifying the source is valid (otherwise we're just citing Wikipedia). All I'm asking is that editors actually look at the article and the meager list of sources. (It's interesting that those who characterized this article as well-sourced left the Unreferenced tag in place, although JuleH's identification of possible sources is productive.)

Jim Dunning | talk  13:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Jim Dunning | talk  20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Jim Dunning | talk  18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment about Adaptation "differences" and Merging: JulesH helpfully suggests finding sources to improve the article And those source articles would be great if they offered any information about the film; unfortunately, they focus on the historical event itself and offer no new information about the film adaptation process. Film Style Guidelines state that "Differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s) can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it." Differences between a work of art and its source are expected, so we focus not on the trivial, but the substantive and treat those issues (supported) in the Production sections of the film article. Which brings us to the Merging issue: most of the material in this article came from deleted and disputed material from the film article. That material was removed because it either didn't sufficiently meet film style guidelines or should be considered for inclusion in the article about the actual escape. DDG and Schmidt, I did consider nominating it for Merging, but since the material has already been there and excluded (and, again, couldn't find support), it is pointless to repeat the process of cleaning up this material here and then trying to Merge the remains. It's already been done: the remains are already in the film article. Instead, as I have already recommended to the article creator and on the film and differences articles' Talk pages, enhance the film article's value by adding valid and sourced adaptation material to the existing Production sections. Let's not divert resources and talent to material on a "Fact vs. Fiction" page that's already been addressed.
 * Keep as per JulesH. Edward321 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article has been moved to Factual accuracy of The Great Escape. Skomorokh  19:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm. Since the film is not a documentary, there is no intent to be "accurate" or true. It is a work of fiction, so the focus should be on the adaptation process and its results. Thus, the use of the word "accuracy" is inaccurate. Also, the article is about the film, not the novel (or is the new article about the novel?). This move should be reconsidered.
 * Keep :I would like to see this article remain. I won't dispute the points made above.  The article needs references and could do with some rework.  However, I didn't stumble upon this article.  I specifically looked for it.  That would indicate some real-world interest in the topic.  I do respect the guidelines.  They are there for a reason.  I will say there is certainly a place for this article in Wikipedia.  Perhaps it needs to be renamed or recategorized to avoid guidelines issues.  I've looked at Film Style Guidelines.  The reference from that link is from the linked article real-world context.  The title of that article contains "writing about fiction".  This not a fictional film.  Maybe those guidelines don't apply directly.  If you're talking about the difference between the movie Jaws and the original book, these guidelines make sense as there is little value in the just stating the differences without the artistic reason.  With non-fiction, there is value to the differences alone.  Many people will learn of this important piece of history from the movie alone.  Without a great deal of research, they could find it difficult to learn what actually happened.  This article can help a great deal in that regard.  (Though many would be interested in seeing the reason for the changes as well).  I will be sad to see this article removed. Wantnot (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (moved here from article's talk page)
 * Keep Certainly, sourcing differences between real-world events and a fictional representation thereof may be problematic. But in encyclopedic terms, I regard the exercise to be worthwhile, and at least ostensibly too large a topic to be comfortably accommodated within the main article; I have some regret that the editor who started the exercise isn't around that much, but that should not be a barrier to appropriately sourced research; I don't see any necessity to rush to delete the article, and it can always be userfied for interested parties to work on before releasing upon an unsuspecting world. The change of title is a step in the right direction, but the work needed to bring the article up to standard should not be a deterrent; bottom line is that I consider it a notable topic, worthy of inclusion here, and lack of sources should not detract from that. We seem to tolerate much worse, on a daily basis. -- Rodhull andemu  22:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic is one for an essay and not an encyclopedia. The information within the article is inherantly OR as nothing in a "fact versus fiction" article can ever logically derive itself from the topic.  Unless this article is about the reception of "fact versus fiction within the film The Great Escape", then the article can do nothing more than cite examples of the topic, while an encyclopedia article should demonstrate the reception of the subject in the real-world. Themfromspace (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keepAgree w/ Editor:Rodhullandemu. Given the proper guidance and instruction this article has varied potential. The Movie has a vast audience and I would guess is on many viewers/readers top movies (at least most enjoyable) of all time. How it correlates with the facts of WWII is extremely interesting and educational. We are creating an encyclopedia, not duplicating one. The editor(s) has/have done a commendable job. It may be a stretch to say its 100% encyclopedic but it is no stretch to say that it should NOT be deleted.--Buster7 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawal: After reviewing the comments I realize what a fool I've been and wish to terminate the AfD process. The existence of the "factual accuracy" page for a fiction article actually solves a major problem for the main article page and I no longer desire to see it deleted. Thank you, everybody, for your revelatory input.
 * Unfortunately, all delete editors have to agree. Ikip (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Strong keep per nominator's change of heart. Ikip (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please keep in mind I don't agree with a single argument posed by the Keepers and my change of heart has only to do with the motivations behind their reasons. So, please, don't take my change of mind as support for the reasons.


 * 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.