The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is original research. If the table was a sourced summary of a publication by Roald Dahl (or someone else) that noted the differences between the book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that may have turned the deletion argument since it would have been Dahl's research rather than a Wikipedia's research. As it is, the source for this article is concluded by consensus to be original research. -- Jreferee t/ c 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply
This article fails to be verifiable as the content is wholly based on the subjective determinations of editors regarding what differences are appropriate, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Furthermore, this topic fails to be notable as there is no significant coverage by reliable sources about adaptations of the source material. Basically, the table is pieced together indiscriminately, with items like whether business cards were shown, the presence of contracts, the act of getting out of bed, etc. There will be creative and conventional differences in any, if not most, adaptations of the source material, and the threshold for inclusion is for there to be real-world context, based on the preceding arguments of notability and relevance. This article meets none of these factors, being the originally derived piecemeal of editors that do not use secondary sources. According to WP:WAF#Secondary information, "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." No secondary information is used here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is original research. If the table was a sourced summary of a publication by Roald Dahl (or someone else) that noted the differences between the book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that may have turned the deletion argument since it would have been Dahl's research rather than a Wikipedia's research. As it is, the source for this article is concluded by consensus to be original research. -- Jreferee t/ c 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply
This article fails to be verifiable as the content is wholly based on the subjective determinations of editors regarding what differences are appropriate, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Furthermore, this topic fails to be notable as there is no significant coverage by reliable sources about adaptations of the source material. Basically, the table is pieced together indiscriminately, with items like whether business cards were shown, the presence of contracts, the act of getting out of bed, etc. There will be creative and conventional differences in any, if not most, adaptations of the source material, and the threshold for inclusion is for there to be real-world context, based on the preceding arguments of notability and relevance. This article meets none of these factors, being the originally derived piecemeal of editors that do not use secondary sources. According to WP:WAF#Secondary information, "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." No secondary information is used here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply