Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to the Harry Potter films

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. Redundant to material covered elsewhere. L Faraone 07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response to the Harry Potter films

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is nothing more of a "compliation" of prose from other articles, as in WP:NOTDIR. It's basically a list of the "Reception" sections for each of the eight films in the series, and does not include any new information that isn't already present (or couldn't be included) in those articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the individual articles per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The only part of this article that seems remotely justified is the claim "Overall, the series' eight films have generally received very positive reviews and acclaim from critics. However, opinions of the films generally divide book fans, with some preferring the more faithful approach of the first two films, and others preferring the more stylised character-driven approach of the later films"--which is unsourced. —Noiratsi (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't care much about this article anyway even though I am the creator. In the discussion of Harry Potter (film series) and the discussion page of this article's page you can see the origin of why it was created. Then to find out all that material in the film series is redundant to each other film's article. They never really should have been on the film series article in the first place. I am actually surprised that it took now for an AFD to happen. Although I do believe the article can be constructive. All it needs to be rewritten on how the particular critics feel about individually. (Not being divided in sections) Then I would think it would not only be a fine but also Good article worthy. So I am not going to say delete (or keep for that matter) because I think the article has potential. I just think it is written the wrong way. Saying the same stuff from the other articles is just not the right answer. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment. Let me elaborate on what I mean. Let's take away all the sections about the particular film series and make them about a certain notable critic's opinion who reviewed all the movies (for example: Roger Ebert). Let's make a section about what that critic thinks about each movie comparingly instead of dividing the movies on section. If we can do that then I do believe the article can and will be constructive. I hope you understand what I mean. I wish I could have time to show you personally but I don't RIGHT NOW. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the material is already in the articles in the individual films (sometimes slightly differently formatted, but differences in content are minimal) so no merge is required. The films were for the most part reviewed separately as separate films: it makes sense to keep that structure. Most film series are handled with a critical response section in the article for each of the individual films so we should be consistent (there is Critical response to the Chronicles of Narnia films and Critical response to Star Trek; but the former covers films and the latter every media, so they're not consistent either). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good point that I hadn't thought of... as you point out, the films were reviewed individually, meaning attempts to discuss the critical reception of the series as a whole might count as original research. —Noiratsi (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator:If you want to (since I am the original creator of the title) I would probably just speedy merge it myself or let anyone else boldly merge it and the problem would be solved with this article. As for the other articles I would AFD the Narnia one and maybe the Star Trek one too. I also support a ~~merge~~ redirect to Harry Potter (film series)#Critical response over delete so we can avoid red links. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there's any content here to merge, which is why I nominated the article in the first place. Like Colapeninsula said above, all the content is already in each of the respective articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant redirection....not merge the content in this article. I am pretty sure the original voter meant the same too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only point I see to a redirection is if you think that users will actually still use this link or search for it on here. I guess we could redirect it to Harry Potter (series)#Reaction. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I just know there is links of this page on other pages and I still think it's better not as a redlink or as deleted history. Also I think you mean Harry Potter (film series)#Reaction. Correct? If so that's where I meant as well. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. It seems to me that it's not really linked in any other articles, but rather just part of the {{Harry Potter}} template, so removing it from the template would avoid any red link issues if it was deleted. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to film series. I agree that it's a redundant content fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (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.