Talk:Voldemort: Origins of the Heir

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Why does the page of a fan made movie exist ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A580:1007:5700:70F7:2C3B:1424:3AFF (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess because is on national newspaper, for example. Just reading after I found an article on a main page of Repubblica.it. i mean if it was kept in June, I cannot think of a coherent reason to delete it now that is getting even bigger. I say this a person with no specific interested in HP franchise. I add a source.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, refimprove is excessive at the moment. The issue has been adequately addressed adding Repubblica and Telegraph, it should be replace with appropriate "citation needed" templates.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually found the webpage useful. A friend told me to check the movie out but I wanted to know a little more about the production and came to wikipedia. I rely on the info on wikipedia for most of my knowledge about the world so I'm actually fine with a page about a fanmade movie. Don't delete it, what's the point in that Sapaahmod (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)sapaahmod[reply]

COI template

I think the COI can be removed - there's been no COI editing since it was added in January. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Chaheel Riens. Firstly, I was waiting for the refimproved to be removed and now that it has been done, it's probably time to evaluate if the COI is necessary. As far as i can see, the article is currently based on a quite composite range of contribution, and it basically states facts. In few weeks, if nobody opposes, we can remove the COI IMHO.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. No need for it now it seems. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any future for the director/film?

There have been short films like this one (relatively short) that have been successful on Youtube and lead to Hollywood careers for the director and, in case of Kung Fury, a feature version of the film made in Hollywood. Does anyone know whether anything of the sort has happened with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B68:2:200E:6CCB:CD87:34:7F3F (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Positive reviews?

Positive reviews does not negate the criticism levelled at the film, and only confirms that reception has been "mixed". It should also be noted that people liking stuff on youtube is not a reliable source and counts for naught when we talk about reviews.

I have reverted the changes made to the reception section as they changed the entire slant of the section without offering sources to support - the only references are the ones I proved which support the "mixed" category. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - with regard to The Verge review, I think that one of the criteria for inclusion would be to spell the characters name correctly - "Mac Laggen" it is not - "McLaggen" it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]