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. While the arguments on keeping the article are somewhat compelling, concerns around verifiability, original research, trivia and undue weight remain. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II deleted scenes[edit]

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II deleted scenes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Potentially trivial list of information; lacks real-world context. Important deleted material with real-world context can be re-integrated into the production section of the films' articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Reintegrating this material into the parent articles would unbalance them, thus the best place for this stuff is in a seperate article. (It's a standard technique for articles which are too long to have sections moved into stand-alone articles, referenced from the main article. That's essentially what's happened here.) The necessary real-world context is provided in abundance by the parent articles, there's no need for it in this article, which deals with internal changes made in the films. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've notified the article's original uploader of this nomination, as well as the two other editors who contributed to it, including the editor who PRODed it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Trivial list, which lacks sources and real world context. I'm sure that most of these cuts are minor and of no real importance (e.g. "There's some short extra footage of Michael in the car arriving at the mall"), and anything of any true significance should be moved to the appropriate film article. PC78 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fully agree with the nominator (likely obvious, since I PRODded the article). There isn't any encyclopedic value to this. The furthest I would be willing to go is merge, but the deleted material is of no consequence to the original outcome of the films to begin with. If there are small parts that are notable, they can indeed be re-integrated. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Ed Fitzgerald, there's too much here to re-integrate into the parent articles. These are two of the top movies of all time (ranked #2 at IMDB) so it is not surprising that a section like this would get spun off and merit its own article. --MPerel 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its fame is irrelevant to the site-wide content guidelines; as this content currently stands, it is not appropriate either within its own article or in the context of another one, for the reasons given in the AfD nom. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to The Godfather - what no deleted scenes form The Godfather Part III? --T-rex 00:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to their respective articles. The sections aren't too long that they would throw off the article, as has been suggested above. Yes, the movies are notable, but I don't think deleted scenes on their own are notable enough for a separate article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- any useful content can be merged into the main articles for the two movies. And the title is so unwieldy, i doubt a redirect would be useful. 69.242.101.88 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The comment above is only the sixth edit by this IP editor. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, the above comment was me, I must've been logged out when I added it. My vote remains the same. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is an acceptable breakout of interesting knowledge regarding clearly notable movies. It is, as Ed Fitzgerald says, standard practice to break out articles this way to prevent unbalancing the original article (or to keep the original article from becoming overly long). It may be wise to explicitly note the subsidiary nature of this article in the header, though RayAYang (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that argument is weakened by the fact that the material is not appropriate for the parent article either, regardless of the balance, because of said issues of triviality and lack of real-world context. Splitting this content off or merging it back as-is will not resolve any of the issues as it stands now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have escalted your view from "potentially trivial" in your nomination, to fairly definitely trivial now.

It is certainly true that, in and of itself, each deletion noted in the article can be said to be trivial, but the article itself can in no way be said to be trivial as a whole. The notability and importance in cinematic history of the two films goes without saying, and the ways in which they were shaped is certainly significant. The article (which, I agree, should be be more definitively be labelled as subsidiary to the main articles) provides the data which define those changes. To provide an analysis of the deletions would be a clear violation of WP:OP, which is why they are presented as is.

To reiterate, the significance lies in the collective information, not in any one datum, and the notability is satisfied by the importance of that information in relation to the development of the films. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It should also be noted that this is not simply stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor, for which it can be argued that the material might have been cut because it was inferior. In this case, when Coppola had the chance to expand the film (for the Saga and the Triology), he chose this material as being of importance in telling the story in a long-form situation. The "real-world" context is provided by the real-world fact that this stuff was chosen by Coppola to be part of the expanded film. As with all media objects, a third-party source is not required when the object itself authenticates the material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstand "real world context" as we use it in our guidelines. It refers to the context written within the article that grounds the "in-universe" information. See WP:WAF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the context that's necessary is provided in the main articles, of which this article is subsidiary. The subsidiary article Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't deal at all with the causes of the attack, or the way the attack proceeded, or how it was responded to, all very important to the topic of "the results of the attack on Pearl Harbor." It doesn't because these are all dealt with in the main article Attack on Pearl Harbor. This is pretty much generally the case with sub-articles which are spun-off from large articles to reduce overhead or avoid problems of unbalancing the main article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With fiction articles, it's different. The Pearl Harbor example is moot, because all that is being discussed actually happened. Fictional subjects, however, have to be firmly grounded - again - within the real-world context of the subject they're discussing. Our guidelines on writing about fiction clearly explain this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guess I'll try once more to put my point across, then give it up for lost: The context you require exists in the main articles that this article is subsidiary to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be civil, then I'd advise giving up. Because if you can't even be bothered to establish anything within a subsidiary article, that should be a red alert that there either isn't notable content, or there isn't notable enough amounts to merit splitting. Rattling off a list of deleted scenes, with no real-world context as to their deletion, what it implied, or how the deleted scenes were received critically upon their presentation...well, that's basically a list of indiscriminate information (related to an otherwise notable topic). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see something uncivil here? I think not. You ask for real-world context for the article, and I'm trying to tell you that the main article establishes the requested real-world context. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the topic is possibly notable does not mean that any content associated with it will be; at the moment this is a collection of indiscriminate information. Some of it may in fact be salvagable if editors are willing and able to significantly overhaul it, but if the issues raised are not, articles which blatantly fail encyclopedic standards are fully justified in being deleted. Were these minor problems, I assure you this would not have been AfD'd by me. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are assuming the outcome of this AfD in advance. That, and only that, will determine whether the article is "encyclopedic" or not. If the consensus here is "keep" and the AfD is closed that way, then the article is encyclopedic, whether or not it fulfills whatever definition of the word you are comfortable with. This being the case, it might be best for both of us to dispense with reiterations of positions that are apparently firmly in opposition, and allow the community to do its work. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective-merge back or delete Trivial list that can't even answer "so what?"; there is no apparant relevance. That some scenes were cut may be important and should be mentioned, but this doesn't require a separate article. If and only if two or three medium-sized paragraphs are added to demonstrate that real-world importance or relevance exists (production, design, reasons for scene deletion, reception), I'd reconsider my !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's simply a trivial list. People might find it "useful" or "interesting" but that certainly doesn't make it more encyclopedic. Also: it shouldn't be merged back. Look at just about any movie article: there isn't lists of deleted scenes, because it's just trivia. If there is a Godfather Wiki, transwiki it there. If not, perhaps a general movie Wiki will have a need for this type of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is unreferenced trivia and doesn't meet WP:V or WP:TRIVA. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not so much because it's trivial (although it is) but for lack of verifiability. The article has no sources, and was clearly compiled by wikipedians with access to the primary sources (that is, copies of the original films and their subsequent releases) comparing them with one another. It's the definition of original research. AndyJones (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation is not "original research", observation is observation. The best and most authoritative sources of information about books, films, CDs, TV shows and other media artifacts are the artifacts themselves. It should not be necessary to find a secondary source to say something which you've just seen or heard or experienced for yourself directly from the primary source, since the artifact can always be consulted to confirm the observation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per RobJ1981. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V, as well as WP:TRIVIA and, extreme undue weight on the features of the film DVD releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:V and feels like WP:OR. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RayAYang. Valenciano (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Leave the article, take the cannolis. Seriously, anyone who loves these films should be able to locate material on their production history and get the proper sourcing. If the article isn't worth keeping, then the material should be merged into the existing articles on the two films in order to show how they evolved during post-production. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (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.