Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 9 clear "delete" votes to 19 "keep" votes (4 anonymous or probable sockpuppet votes discounted). While that would normally be considered an unambiguous "keep" decision, I find it in direct contradiction to Wikipedia established policy (which was carefully cited below). A few keep voters explicitly expressed that they understood the policy and found reason to request an exception in this case. The majority of keep voters appear from their comments to have voted in ignorance of the policy.

I am going to call this decision as a "no concensus" (which defaults to keep for now). All participants are encouraged to carefully review the relevant policies before voting and certainly before renewing this debate. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie)[edit]

This article is about a movie about which very little is known about. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete, or at the very least, redirect to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Hermione1980 22:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The film will eventually be made, and the article recreated, and untill then it serves as information about cast, etc. Many articles on Wikipedia are about things that have yet to happen, this is no different from the rest of them. Orange Goblin 22:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, WP has many articles about "things that have yet to happen" but it's just too far out to have an article. 2007? Come on. At least let the fourth movie come out first. There hasn't even been a big media deal about this yet, which is a possible qualification for future events/releases. Heck, they haven't really even gotten started for the sixth book yet, let alone even the fourth movie. Information on the cast can be found on the actor/actress's own page, most of which can be accessed through the articles for the other four movies. Not only that, but nobody's officially been confirmed yet, AFAIK, except the director. Sure, we presume Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and the rest will be coming back, but we don't know. It's just too early to know. Speculation is inherently unencyclopedic. (I'll quit speechifying now. :-) Hermione1980 23:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMDB has the cast list so far - only two, but its still there. If this is delete, someone will just come along and recreate it, it'll get deleted again, etc etc, untill it is 2007. So why not just leave it? Orange Goblin 23:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be far off, but all the info is confirmable and it states all speculation, which really isn't too wild, upfront. I think it's got sufficient info available to keep. Mgm|(talk) 23:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article states the cast have not signed on but are expected to. How can a movie that does not yet have a cast be anything other than speculation? Recreate when a firm release date is published. --Allen3 talk 23:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There has even been speculation that the original kids would not make any more of the movies. RickK 23:32, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
With few exceptions, future events are prima facie unencyclopedic, because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:
  1. Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event; planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion; or speculation is well documented, such as with the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
Filming isn't even supposed to start until spring 2006. I doubt they're even in pre-production yet. How many other movies coming out in 2007 do we have articles on? If there are more articles than just a couple of stubs, I will be quite surprised. Hermione1980 00:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per What Wikipedia is not, no specific dates have been set yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a crystal ball. Xcali 01:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's no reason to assume this won't be created, and we can fill in the info as it comes along. --W(t) 01:22, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
    • There certainly is reason to assume this won't be created, if the teen actors decide they aren't going to do it. RickK 05:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • You think that given the choice between takign up the chance to make vast profits by recasting and abandoning the project Warners will do the latter!? CalJW 23:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case there's a wonderful article to be written on which actors didn't want to join in, what (if anything) the studios did to try to persuade them, why the studios didn't contract them for all films in one go, etc. --W(t) 12:06, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep normally I vote delete on films that havent been made however the imdb entry as well as media coverage on the proposed film indicates some notability for me. Megan1967 04:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT. Possibly Redirect to the book. Radiant_* 10:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an exceptional case, in the same class as the three Star Wars prequels. Revenge of the Sith, for instance, has been on Wikipedia since June, 2002, just a month after the box office release of the preceding Star Wars movie, Attack of the Clones. The information on this much-awaited Harry Potter movie seems to be out of sync with IMDb, which lists the producer as David Heyman, not Chris Columbus, but if the Wikipedia version is wrong this problem can be solved by editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough despite being two years early. —Xezbeth 13:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable information about a movie which is notable even if it doesn't ever happen. Kappa 13:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway Xoloz 19:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Calling this "crystal ball" gazing is silly. There is virtually no doubt that it will happen, it is of interest to tens of millions of people, and in the very unlikely event it doesn't get made it will still merit an article. Please don't try to cut out high profile, verifiable material which will interest people and thereby help Wikipedia to grow. CalJW 23:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the "crystal ball" argument, but I think the fact that this is an inevitable movie in a major series weighs more importantly. I think that the "speculation is well documented" and that this makes this article worthy of inclusion. Sjakkalle 06:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or something. I might as well add a movie stub for the unreleased 6th book. The cast will probably come back for it. - Stoph 04:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Hermione1980. --OGoncho 05:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- will remain notable for foreseeable future because of doubts as to whether the major cast will be able to return -- the further the movies slip behind chronological time, the harder it will be for the stars to avoid being overtaken by new, younger (and cheaper) ingenues --Simon Cursitor 07:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there will inevitably be information about this film which needs to be recorded and this is the best place to record it. I'm inclined to think that some of the worry about future events is over-blown: the preparation for a major event which fails to happen is likely to be just as encyclopedic as the event itself might have been, and writing the article months afterwards is bound to introduce inconsistencies and inaccuracy. --Phil | Talk 09:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Wikipedia should be in touch with the future. Edits will be made as time develops.
    ↑This vote placed by 70.185.179.4 at 00:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given by others. Academic Challenger 20:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure crystal ball stuff until actual filming begins, and even then borderline. "It is rumoured to be rated PG-13 for violent content"? Give me a break. --Calton | Talk 06:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep exception should be made with crystal ball rule with regard to notable sequals. This is a highly anticipated movie. JamesBurns 06:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 09:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it turns out not to be made, that's a notable ommission. -- BD2412 talk 14:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. The PG-13 rumour will be proven true at a later date, and Jason WAS the first to announce that he will return. (Previous unsigned vote was by User:Ryanasaurus0077 16:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC). Hermione1980 19:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep. I thought it was a little odd that the movie had an entry at first, but an established link with limited appropriate information should be more static than an entry that's constantly being re-created and re-deleted. If deleted, at what point will the article "suddenly" become encyclopedic? --1pezguy 18:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Because it is going to be a movie. (Previous unsigned vote was by User:65.198.249.86 at 00:30 5 Jun 2005. Hermione1980 13:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep. This film is already in production. Go look at a movie that's not yet released. There's a Batman Begins and War of the Worlds page. Those aren't yet released. Why should this? Plus this wiki has more information than the OotP book page.

(Previous unsigned vote was by User:TheSiGuy 16:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC). Hermione1980 19:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC))

  • Please do not impersonate other users. I did not make that last comment. That last vote and the "attribution" were both done by User:71.65.193.30. If the IP address corresponds to the username, User:TheSiGuy has a grand total of 16 edits. Hermione1980 20:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The movie is already in production and has a page on IMDb. Even if the movie isn't produced, its production and the reason for not being completed will be notable enough for Wikipedia. As for such an article being too speculative and too premature, what's the point in deleting it and then having to write it again?Kostja (Talk) 12:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This movie will definately be made! And the notability outweighs crystalballery. The answer to crystalballery is not to delete, but to edit. I have put a list on the talk page on things that need to be addressed. Sonic Mew 14:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.This film will be made, its just a matter of time. The page can be updated when new information becomes available. 69.89.38.36
  • Comment. The IMDb notes that the film is in "pre-production." Therefore, as per the What Wikipedia Is Not wording, planning or preparation is worthy of an article. I'm not voting yet because I'm not sure how reliable IMDb is in these matters. I just offer that for you to consume and think about. -Tadanisakari 06:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • IMDb isn't always reliable, but The Leaky Cauldron reported on this a few days ago, also confirming that Daniel Radcliffe is almost certainly going to sign on. Perhaps I should withdraw this request. Hermione1980 13:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(movie)&oldid=1142203876"