Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 hesitant keep. The article is sourced well enough, but production is shaky as of now. Sr13 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

[edit]
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

too much of a crystal ball for now - no release date, no screenplay writer, and only the main three characters explicitly confirmed (yes, I know Bonham Carter confirmed a role, but I'm wary of that source as it would imply she was one of the twenty that had early access to Deathly Hallows) Will (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep WE all know that there will be a film adaptation. It is very well sourced. Cartoon Boy 18:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the Deathly Hallows is an important film which will definitely come out and any information available should be accessible on Wikipedia Shnib 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until more information can be found. WP:CRYSTAL. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice per CRYSTAL. This is just a vandal target for now. VanTucky (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number one vandal target is whoever the current president of the US is. That's not a valid reason for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there will almost certainly be a DH film and people would search Wikipedia for information about it. I don't understand why there cannot be an article until the release date and the screenplay writer are confirmed.Xammer 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; meaning that we don't contain information about events that supposed to happen in future, but are not confirmed in reliable sources. A film that doesn't even have a screen-writer yet is pretty wobbly, and what's more, this can be re-created when substantial information is available. It's just too soon. VanTucky (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People may search Wikipedia for info, but they won't actually find any in that article. Or at least very little. Target for wild speculation and vandalism. Restart when morei nfo is known. TheIslander 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so that it can be updated with more information as it becomes available, without having to recreate the article and then debate whether the new info is enough to justify having an article. This event is certainly notable and near-certain to take place, and it doesn't include speculation, so it doesn't really fall under a strict interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL, though I'll grant a looser interpretation might kill it. Sly Si 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment arguing that this is going to be significantly expanded in the near future is pure speculation, and the possible future status of an article is not a sufficient reason to keep anything. It's about the article as it stands, here and now. If you can improve it within the span of this debate, then it might be worth keeping. VanTucky (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a crystalball. Greswik 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All the info is sourced, it contains no OR and no crystalballing. We have the "future film" template to warn people its in preproduction. Crystalball says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." My emphasis added. A movie is officially in preproduction when it is listed in IMDB, as this movie is. We have a history of articles on future events, so long as they are sourced properly. See: 2012 Summer Olympics --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - IMDB is hardly a reliable source. Will (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Who says so? Every movie article, and every actor article in Wikipedia links to IMDB. Show me something unreliable in IMDB thats not part of a user's comments, and I'll show you more than one in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, we're saying IMDB is a user-contributed database, and as such, does contain errors and it may well contain speculation, especially in regards to as of yet unreleased films. Wikipedia having IMDB links is not an endorsement of the facts presented in IMDB, nor does it mean in any way that IMDB constitutes a reliable source. IMDB material has, however, been found useful as supplemental material, hence external links. As for your challenge: I had a look at [1] and found myself looking for edit button to add a quite a bunch of {{fact}}s in. Deep Impact was so inspired by FF7? Yeah, suuuure, And I guess I need to watch The Matrix and Shrek umpteenth time to figure out how the heck they "reference" FF7... And hey, this is a released title - speaking of prereleases, did you know Eminem used to be listed for quite a while in Advent Children credits as "Mr. Coates" (whoever that is?) until the movie was actually released with an English soundtrack notoriously lacking any Eminent talent. Now please point out where them Wikipedia errors are so I can throw around some {{fact}}s - though I really hope you can add them yourself, because it saves both my and your time and energy... =)
    Comment That is one of the user comment fields in IMDB, I think there are 8 fields that can be user submitted. No one can add a film, or add actors, but there are at least 8 fields for quotes, gaffes, plot summaries, biographies, that are user added. Should they be better distinguished? Yes, does that mean IMDB as a whole is unreliable? No.
  • Speedy keep as 3 characters have been confirmed, Warner Bros are doing it etc and you dont need to be a psychic to see this will be a film, SqueakBox 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need an encyclopaedia article telling us nothing. Anyone can guess there will be a film, and the characters will remain, but until there is actual information available, there seems little point there being an article. While there may be little or no crystal balling, there is also little or no information. Toon 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This movie has already been confirmed. PEOPLE WILL WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT!!

  • Comment Thats why it is a stub. Wikipedia has always recognized a stub as legitimate, and there is no valid reason to remove a stub that is properly sourced to IMDB and Warner Brothers and Entertainment Weekly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All this information is verified; as per Richard Norton, other future events have articles, such as the 2012 Summer Olympics. And since when has being a vandal target qualified as a reason for deletion? Trust our revert skills. More info is bound to follow on the film. Its production has been confirmed and there are actors who have already signed contracts to be in it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when I nominated this article for deletion, there was one reference to the confirmation of a character we don't know is going to be in the book yet. Compare it to the 2012 Olympics pages, which, combined, has upwards of a hundred references. Hell, the 2016 Olympics have 30 references. One reference to a future event is not an invincible shield against deletion. Will (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this article is a waste of time, as it will just have to be created again at some stage in the near future anyway. --Bobbymadden 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There will most certainly be a seventh motion picture based on the seventh book. --Camptown 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This doesn't fall under WP:CRYSTAL, as the picture is contracted to be made. In the event that the film was never released, it would justify the article as well. Joe User NY 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others or wikify until nearer the time. Simply south 23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball. Look at what the keepers say: "will most certainly". It's crystal balling, plain and simple. Wryspy 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's passes WP:V. I realise that WP:CRYSTAL could be a consideration, however we do have articles on future things which are planned but not yet being made (rail lines, building, etc). Since there is solid sources available, I'm ok with this. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 01:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a film on this book HAS been signed to happen
  • Keep Actors have been signed to the film and the film is in pre production.harlock_jds 02:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the film will happen --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 03:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the film will happen in any time so there's no point of deleting it--SuperHotWiki 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per Hotwiki. RockerballAustralia 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bart133. --FireV 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment Wiki is a user friendly information site dedicated to the people who use it for personal interests if they choose to, consider the votes so far 14:6 (keep/delete). Add that the rules states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" - I'd say there is enough verified evidence to suggest the production of the film. If this page were to be deleted users would eventually question the pages existence or even attempt to create a new one. User:Arccorp 16:43, 21 July (AEST)
    AFD is not a vote. The "it's going to happen" delete rationales fail to account for the fact that it's a target for crystalgazing and unlikely to be unstubbified until at least they finish on the sixth movie. The 2032 Olympics are going to happen, yet they don't have a page, as there isn't enough verifiable information for an article. Will (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies just as much to articles that don't exist as it does to articles that do exist. in other words, the fact that the 2032 olympics doesn't have an article doesn't mean you can't cite that as precedent for this article. and if you don't like the fact that it doesn't have an article, be bold and create one!
  • Keep as per HotWiki. --Credema 06:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- agree with "keepers", although I probably never will look any of that stuff 8]] -- any IP. 08:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This film will definately going to be produced as WB has registered the name.

Bunty Rocks 08:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since, while not the most informative of articles, it does have sourced statements and I can say that I have learned something after reading through the article. --pie4all88 09:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... as User:SqueakBox said, if you look at the article for the film based off of the sixth book, three actors have been confirmed (by verifiable sources). This information should be reflected in this article to give it greater completeness. While I disagree with the reasoning of many of the keeps (e.g. "the film will happen" still fails WP:CRYSTAL), the lack of information is not that the information isn't available but no one with knowledge of the subject has added it to the article. Utopianheaven 11:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no clear boundary on exactly how much 'solid' evidence/proof from sources is needed for it to qualify for WP:CRYSTAL. One's thing's for sure, this movie is going to happen. There is enough verifiable evidence to prove the production of this film in my opinion. Any article that documents a future event is a target for crystalgazing and you can't delete all articles on future events now can you? Mysterial 11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no doubt that the film will be made (except if some disaster takes place until then, of course). References are going to increase in number; sooner or later this article should be created anyway. Adam78 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I find the reason to delete flawed. This movie is in prodcution and information as been confrimed. Æon Insanity Now! 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was concerned as well when I noted that this article existed already. Having checked it over carefully, however, I don't think that it violates WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL: all of the information is sourced, and it seems obvious that there will eventually be a movie, given the rampant commercialization of Harry Potter as a franchise. I'm no big fan of the books (they're overrated, somewhat formulaic, and ultimately not as great as everyone says they are), but I'm inclined to agree that this article, while definitely stubby, contains only what is appropriate and can, as information becomes available, be expanded appropriately. Nihiltres(t.l) 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't violate crystal ball; it's confirmed that there will be a movie, and that at least three (and perhaps more) of the characters have been confirmed for it. That's good enough for me. Ral315 » 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't matter if there are sources on this yet, the fifth movie was just released, the seventh film won't be even in serious pre-production for at least a couple of years. Not appropriate for Wikipedia at this time. No prejudice to recreation when this goes into pre-pro or starts filming Rackabello 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Which exact part of Crystal are you referring to? Can you provide an exact quote that convinces me? Your telling me to go look it up in the bible, but just giving some fuzzy idea that the rationale is in there somewhere. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's really not enough information available to warrant a separate article. It's like creating an article for Hurricane Arthur; we know it's going to happen, and it'll turn counterclockwise. But there's no point in having an article at this point. This article should probably just be merged into Harry Potter (films). 17Drew 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I guess thats because we really don't know there will be a hurricane named Arthur in a particular year, the rules for naming the storms changed when they included male and female names, and changed again when they included more exotic names. And of course we know zero about the storm, except maybe a tentative name. The film of course is not speculation, it represents the preproduction facts known up to this time, and is sourced to reliable media. For other examples see Pixar for multiple projects and their progress in development, such as Toy Story 3. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we know Arthur's coming in 2008. The information that's there right now is more or less a rehashing of information from previous films. There's very little here that isn't contained in Harry Potter (films) or related articles, even when they're written in summary style. The fact that there will be more information means that it should be written about in the main film article until a separate article can be spun out. 17Drew 06:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storng and speedy delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do feel there's enough information for an article here, and that it will expand further. Come on, we all know it will happen. Abeg92contribs 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, we know the end of the world will happen, but we aren't making an article about that. Dalejenkins
    Comment See: Eschatology. People have been writing about the end of the world for over 1,000 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable.
  • Keep and semi-protect. That takes care of the vandal-target problem; I do see where you're coming from. It is a very notable subject, and with the book coming out, is very relevant. Neranei T/C 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's as legitimate as any other upcoming film page. Kuralyov 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There enough details to justify the article.--JForget 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced and valid, seems all right to me...Ravenmasterq 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article will exist either way: if the movie is not made it will be notable in it's absence. Deleting it is quite an over reaction, at worst, maybe a redirect. Ariel. 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have citations to prove the main actors are in it and who's distributing it etc., proving that it is in fact an upcoming film and should have an article. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not OR, not a crystal ball, etc. Sophy's Duckling 07:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fair amount of sourced info already; more is sure to come in the near future, and there should be a place to put it. Hqb 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film has been announced. Actors are being cast. There's some information now. Sooner or later there will be a page on the subject, I don't see any point in removing the page. Nfitz 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any doubt this movie is going to be coming out, honestly? $3,500,000 in box office through five films says so. plus in pre-production already Freedomeagle 05:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hardly an encyclopedic material. It belongs to IMDB & Co, not Wikipedia. Alex Pankratov 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep This film is almost 100% assured. CRYSTAL does not apply here Mysekurity 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Some of the cast are already signed on, of course there is no screenplay writer yet - the book just came out, so there isn't much they could've done until yesterday. It's a notable part of a notable series of movies, based on the notable book series. Gradually, you'll find more sources, especially now that the book came out. --theblueflamingoSquawk 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong and Speedy Keep and Protect - Though the movie has a tentative 2010 release date, the release of the movie is certain nonetheless, and the recent release of the book makes this a topic to keep. ShawnIsHere 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Well sourced and definitely not a crystal ball...Kanamekun 10:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will gradually fill out as information comes out. Anthony Appleyard 12:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - as per Ariel. Tphi 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Warner Bros would never miss out on such an obvious source of income, the film's release is undoubtable. Vint 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Harry Potter (films). There is no clear reason why this topic should be split off when there is very little to say about it. It reads like a Summary Style section of what should be the main article, and will not be fleshed out for at least another year. Zunaid©® 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is already flagged {{future film}}, and will be updated as details about are discovered. People will visit this page to learn about the film, and I see no reason why it should be deleted just because there's little fact known about it at the moment, regardless of WP:CRYSTAL. -FeralDruid 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the apocalypse happens between now and 2010, there's going to be the movie. They can't just stop at number 6.–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sidious above. --Fang Aili talk 19:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It will come out and all those who wannt information on it can look here and see what we do and do not know. Rembrant12 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have all signed contracts to appear in this film. Release is certain. Not a case of WP:CRYSTAL (in fact, I believe that at one point WP:CRYSTAL used "Harry Potter Book 7" as an example of a product to be released in the future which was acceptable). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge/redirect. 0utright deletion seems like worst option. Donnie Love 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for the above reasons. It HAS been confirmed by numerous sources, and is not crystal balling. All of the article is well sourced. And for those of you saying IMDb is not a reliable source because users can contribute, why do you even bother editing Wikipedia? There are more restrictions on IMDb, yet you seem to have no problem here. 65.162.59.80 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It is indisputable that the seventh HP film is both notable and certain to be made. If the article is deleted now, it's just going to keep getting recreated over and over again, as more information becomes known. There is enough known now to justify the article as it stands. Marc Shepherd 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. The article will need to be created again soon, and since there is (albeit a small amount of) confirmed information there, there is no need to delete it. The list of 'Previous roles' should be removed, though. Mark (Talk) 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Julien Foster 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per others. The more information the better.--Drboisclair 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Why delete it when it will be needed again in a few months (or less) when information begins pouring in? This seems to be part of the recent vendetta against all Harry Potter related articles. -Inventm 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. The fact that this movie will be made has been verified. In addition, this article is notable. Chupper 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable to have and the section for the returning characters can be turned into a returning characters list with the actor and actress info removed to avoid speculation aside from the confirmed roles and since the character pages already have the info on the actors from the previous movies. -Adv193 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_(film)&oldid=1206284566"