Wiki143:Articles for deletion/The Long Goodbye (film)

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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro 06:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Long Goodbye (film)

Text was taken from The Long Goodbye, but I restored it to that article. The book & movie are similar enough that they should remain one article, and the movie isn't notable enough on its own to merit its own article or to be anything more than a stub. Klaw ¡digame! 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is no point in having two seperate articles about the same subject using the same text. Researchers gain nothing from this. -- (aeropagitica)  21:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article has now been changed sufficiently to warrant a separate page from the novel. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-05 22:01Z

• Comment. The content in this article is already in The Long Goodbye, so a merge vote is tantamount to a delete. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • But we're left with the edit history for both, plus a nice, shiny redirect. The material is the same in both articles, so either way, something is going to have to be 'deleted'. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment there's also an Erasure song by that name, so possibly a disambig might make sense. No vote for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who seperated it, and removed the movie info from the book page. The movie info has since been returned to the main page. It should be seperate pages, IMO, because the book and movie have almost nothing to do with each other. Robert Altman was attempting to make an Anti-noir film. Either way, it's two seperate things. Otherwise, why not just combine all books with movies, which it appears we aren't doing. This isn't a case of a book made into a movie, like say, the Big Sleep which was written for the film or the Postman Always Rings Twice, which follows the book closly. It would be like having the animated Lord of the Rings movies tacked onto the end of the LOTR book pages. Either way works for me. Just don't flame my talk page.Steve-O 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A book and movie typically go in one article if either (or both) lacks the notability to stand on its own, or if they're too closely linked to be separated. In this case, the movie isn't notable on its own, and its plot is extremely close to the book's. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep —If that was the case, then why does The Big Sleep have two seperate entries for the film versions? An interesting argument. I would like to know what people think that have read the book and seen the film. I've added to the article today. Steve-O 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — both articles have sufficient content to keep them separate. Movie productions are rarely if ever exact duplicates of the novels on which they are based. So I don't have an issue with separate articles, as long as they are well-developed. — RJH 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as the film article is well-developed (i.e. not a stub), it should stand on its own. I think Steve has sufficiently expanded the film information to merit its own article. I think the precedent was set long ago that film versions can be separate from their novel's articles. They should only remain attached when the film is an integral part of explaining the novel (not the case here by a long shot) or if neither article can stand alone (two stubs combined to form a decent-sized article). Volatile 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The book is one thing and the film is another. Both versions are cultural and artistic artifacts on their own merits. I've read the book and seen the film; Chandler does his 1950's L.A. literary thing, and Altman takes it and runs with it in a purely 1970's L.A. cinematic way. Perhaps some editing and clean-up is warranted, but outright deletion is not.
• Strong Keep -- The book and movie differ in notable ways. I can't imagine merging them into a single article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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.