Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter cast

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, perhaps bordering on no consensus. The outcome is the same regardless. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter cast

Listcruft U15896 06:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC) — U15896 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete What is this? I got kind of confused reading this. This table is not really necessary. One could just look for the character and find the exact information. I say delete. As much as I love Harry Potter, delete. K yo cat^meow! 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRUFT. Nothing new of value in this article. MartinDK 08:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I'm never completely sanguine about new users whose first contribution is an AfD nomination, but this does seem redundant. Shimeru 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing my mind after Fbv's overhaul. Shimeru 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Dennisthe2 08:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant...per nom. Sr13 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superfluously redundant... SkierRMH,12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Mig ^(Talk) 14:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going against the general consensus here, just becuase that's the kind of radical I am, but I also think this list would be extremely convenient to anyone who wants a quick reference of who's in what movie. Sure, it is "redundant" in that each character page says which movies they are in, but it seems much easier to come here if you're wanting to look this all up at once. I don't know the first thing about Harry Potter, and it makes sense to me (well, until you scroll down half-a-screen and can no longer see which movies the actors correspond with). And whoever created it, it looks like they put lot of hard work into putting this together. Good work. Wavy G 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not clear what this is redundant with. Is there another list? If so, this should be merged in the usual way; if not, this is certainly a useful and encyclopedic addition to Wikipedia's HP coverage. Also, I must note that the nom provided no grounds for deletion. -- Visviva 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems with verifiability or reliable sources, and I could see how it could be useful to see at-a-glance who played who in what movie, especially since some of the roles have switched actors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redundancy is not an actual reason to delete, and this page does seem to serve a useful list in terms of looking at the information at a glance. Since this series is a book to movie, this may be useful to some folks who want to look at the appearance of a character in a movie versus the books. It could use a little fixing so you could keep better track of the movies/books, but that's a minor edit. FrozenPurpleCube 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say this falls outside the realm of cruft, as it could be of interest to non-Potter fans. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with the presence of character articles. Interrobamf 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of Harry Potter movie cast members. Useful and encyclopedic, and certainly too large to include in Harry Potter. —Cuivi é nen 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm curious to know how a user in his first three edits nominated an article for deletion and was aware of the term "cruft." I don't think I learned the meaning of that word for at least two months into my Wikijourney. While I admit that I'm biased towards this article since I edit the page frequently (and gave it a complete make-over from when it was really a mess), I must say neutrally that this list serves a purpose just as any other. For those who suggest to merge into the film article or look at character entries, you aren't seeing the purpose of a list: to gather the information in one place, rather than having to diverge and get it at each individual article. Additionally, it is helpful to track the changes over time of a character (like Andrew Lenahan said), which is more difficult to do in a character article. I agree that the page should be renamed and that it could be cleaned-up to reflect differences from the book, but that does not merit discussion here. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with the good points you make here, but I would like to point out that cruft predates Wikipedia. It appears in Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File. I was aware of the term "cruft" before there was a Wikipedia. --DavidConrad 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Update: I followed a few links, and I found this 1959 edition of the dictionary of the Tech Model Railroad Club by Peter Samson which shows that the word was in use among the members of the club at that time. Wow! --DavidConrad 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that so? You learn something new everyday… Anyway, since it's not part of colloquial speech (unless you're nerdy and you talk in Wikitalk ;D) -- at least not from what I hear daily -- it struck me as unusual. I certainly learned it on Wikipedia, but I see that's not always the case. Thanks! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all above "keeps". Cbrown1023 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. I was honestly expecting to vote delete on this one, but it isn't actually particularly crufty: it's a good way of presenting the information. Not sure about renaming because it isn't exactly a "list". — Haeleth Talk 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as interesting synthesis of info from various articles, though technically unreferenced since all its info comes from Wikipedia articles. Edison 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just gone through and referenced all the material, something I've been meaning to do for a while but was inspired by this AfD. Since movies 1-4 have been confirmed as completely on the IMDb, I cited that for the first four columns, and proceeded to copy and paste each individual ref from the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) article, so that everybody appearing in the fifth column is cited after their name in the table. I hope this meets with approval. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides a very convenient glance at all the characters. Jamesino 02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no other article that tracks the changes of casting througout the series. I think it's useful to many people to be able to see this. --ctachme 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. This is the kind of listing that not being limited by paper allows for. Markovich292 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — per User:Wavy G. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Harry Potter. 38.100.34.2 01:32, 25 November 2006 (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.