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 no consensus. No consensus to do anything has been established, although merging can be discussed on the various talk pages since it is an editorial decision. --Coredesat 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Hopeless WP:OR and listcruft which has no place on Wikipedia. Will (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:
  • WP:OR - "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." There is no reliable source that directly covers the differences between the book and the film, only the separate sources of the book and the film. These separate sources have been brought together by editors who contribute the results of their analysis, so this article's contents fails verifiability. Even if there was a reliable source that covers the differences, the article should be limited to what that reliable source covers. It is still original research to "pad" the topic with one's own personal observations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It doesn't do any harm" is not considered a valid argument to keep. The article contains no real-world context that would be suitable for an encyclopedia; it is original research drawn together by the editors themselves without any use of independent significant coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "It's useful" is not considered a valid argument to keep. Editors personally wrote the content themselves without drawing upon independent significant coverage. The articles are completely subject to the original contributors' whim and has no real-world context, which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is supposed to contain. This information is fine in a Harry Potter Wikia or a fan site, but the content has no encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bignole is not suggesting that the excessive detail is a copyright violation in the strictest sense of copy-and-paste. However, per WP:FUC #2, 3, and 5, the detail is potentially too excessive, especially per the various arguments that have been presented about the articles failing to have encyclopedic value. In addition, per WP:IINFO #2, the details in the tables can be considered plot summaries as they lack any real-world context or sourced analysis (which does not mean an editor comparing the book and the film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to copy and paste something to be a copyright violation (b/c that would be plain plagarism, since there isn't a source for any of it listed...in this case it would have to be the page you got the information from). But, excessive detail, when you have supplied no justification for fair use (as the book itself is a copyrighted piece of material), you can be subjected to a copy vio lawsuit. A gent was successfully sued for having Seinfeld quotes in a book he wrote, those are one-liners (though he had a lot, which is why he got sued). This page, and the others are entire scenes which are mapped out, detail for detail. You couldn't publish a book that simply laid out detailed scenes from another book, and detailed scenes from a movie and leave it at that. It's not even as simple as one-lined information, there are fully paragraphs of information that do nothing but detail scenes, all the way down to a street name (even when it isn't any different in the film). That's infringing on Rowling's rights, because there's no critical commentary to go along with it to suggest a reason for the comparison.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an adequate description of American copyright law; I can't speak to the laws of other countries. In America, to violate copyright you have to reproduce the text or create a work derivative of it (other than parody, commentary, etc.). Merely providing a description of the content of a story is not a violation of copyright. Copyright protects the rights of an author to the text he or she produces, and the right to create new works derived from the original work. It does not protect the ideas, concepts, facts or pseudofacts mentioned in the work. RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, your have to directly reproduce the text to violate the copyright. Descriptions of copyrighted material do not violate the copyright. Case in point: CliffsNotes. Aexia 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This could be considered an infringement, considering how detailed the replication of the book is, and of the script of the film. It's one thing to say "Harry went here in the book, but in the film he went here", and another to start writing out entire scenes in a book, and entire scenes in a film, with no "original commentary" attached. If someone published a chapter of "the Philosopher's Stone", that would be infringing on the rights the copyright. It isn't the whole book. It's created a derivative. Considering this page is a list of "all differences" in these books, and these huge scene descriptions, you could classify the sum as a derivative work. The fact that so much of the text is reproduced, simple to line up with the film scenes, you could (as I said before, "it is dangling awfully close", not it is violating) get pinched for it. It's harder to explain the encyclopedic purposes of that much detail, when the actual difference in the two versions is only a single sentence worth of information in most cases.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."
This article makes descriptive claims whose accuracy is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge; it also makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.RandomCritic 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll yield to this wording, as I did not notice this. However, the wording states for rare occasions, so why again should this be kept? As it's been said before, the translation from one medium to another will obviously have conventional and creative differences. Such changes are widespread among adaptations and do not seem to be considered "rare occasions" of depending on primary sources. There are other arguments that have been presented as well: WP:WAF denotes writing about fiction should include primary and secondary sources. WP:IINFO denotes that writing plot summaries (multiple summaries of multiple parts of the plot here) requires real-world context behind them as they are otherwise indiscriminate information, and WP:NOTE reflects that these topics would only be permissible with the independent coverage of secondary reliable sources, with zero reliable sources existing in any of these articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The popularity of a topic does not permit one to add their own analysis of two separate sources. This is synthesis, and the lack of independent, secondary sources in all of these articles (except for one, which only cites sources in a small table for the exclusion of characters from a preceding film) fails to grant notability to the entries that the editors have included themselves from their own deduction. With such a system of original research in place, there is no criteria in the form of reliable sources (independent and secondary) to narrow the scope of differences between the books and films to those that can be considered encyclopedic. Here's an excerpt: "The forest in which Harry, Hermione, Neville and Draco serve their detention is called the Forbidden Forest," and "The forest in which Harry, Ron, Hermione and Draco serve their detention is called the Dark Forest." There is zero real-world context or notability in such a context because an editor originally contributed this comparison after deducting on his or her own that including the difference was relevant. It's been argued that it is not original research to present information from two sources for the reader to deduct, but it is original research for the editor to subjectively determine if a difference is appropriate for inclusion, void of any backing by any independent, secondary source. Such differences, such as the difference between the names of the forests, teach readers on Wikipedia nothing of their real-world context or notability. I can contest this difference about forest names because it has zero backing, but if there was a reliable source from the screenwriter who explains why the change was made, that is generally impervious to criticism of lacking real-world context/notability. The differences in writing for the film, in my opinion, should be similar to what can be found at Road to Perdition#Writing, a personal example. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frivolous criticism. Deciding what is important to talk about and what's not is a characteristic, not of "original research", but of writing. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia where an editor has not exercised some choice in deciding what to mention on a topic and what not. Are all Wikipedia articles original research then? By commenter's criteria, yes. So let's delete the whole thing.RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors are not choosing from reliable sources about the topic to include in the article. The editors are dictating the information from their own comparisons of two primary sources when there was none to be had before. Frivolous argument. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple arguments for deletion, not just the basis of original research. These articles have been explained to fail WP:IINFO, WP:NOTE, and WP:WAF criteria. The information, without real-world context, are indiscriminate plot details, have no independent, significant reliable sources to determine the notability of the information included, and only primary sources have been used in these articles. The usage of solely primary sources referring to each other to convey information about a topic is original research. The simple fact is that Wikipedia should not contain originally contributed indiscriminate information drawn from primary sources instead of verifiable information from independent, secondary sources that address the information's notability and real-world context. That's the argument in a nutshell. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response If people can "delete per nom" then why can't I "keep per other keeps"? Wl219 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ahh. Ok, that makes more sense then, but it looked like WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your vote would be more insightful if you explained your views/a good reason for keeping the articles because a few of the other keep votes (for which you are basing your vote) have got very little basis for keeeping the article. Seraphim Whipp 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well whup-tee-doo, that hasn't stopped those from appearing in AfD. Fine, change my vote to merge to Harry Potter canon. Wl219 14:25, 1 August 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.
More