Deletion of The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction

Comment: about Adaptation "differences" and Help:Merging and moving pages|Merging'': JulesH helpfully suggests finding sources to improve the article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article4481367.ece http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-great-escapes-the-harsh-reality-and-true-heroism-behind-the-hollywood-prison-camp-epics-535215.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/history/2004/03/great_escape_04.shtml) And those source articles would be great if they offered any information about the film; unfortunately, they focus on the historical event itself and offer no new information about the film adaptation process. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Adaptations|Film Style Guidelines state that "Differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s) can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it." Differences between a work of art and its source are expected, so we focus not on the trivial, but the substantive and treat those issues (|supported) in the Production sections of the film article. Which brings us to the Merging issue: most of the material in this article came from deleted and disputed material from the film article. That material was removed because it either didn't sufficiently meet film style guidelines or should be considered for inclusion in the article about the Stalag Luft III|actual escape. DDG and Schmidt, I did consider nominating it for Merging, but since the material ''has already been there and excluded'' (and, again, couldn't find |support), it is pointless to repeat the process of cleaning up this material here and then trying to Merge the remains. It's already been done: the remains are already in the film article. Instead, as I have already recommended to the article creator and on the Talk:The Great Escape (film)#Fact vs fiction|film and Talk:The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction|differences articles' Talk pages, ''enhance'' the film article's value by adding valid and sourced adaptation material to the existing Production sections. Let's not divert resources and talent to material on a "Fact vs. Fiction" page that's already been addressed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: regarding views that the article is "nicely sourced"'': Actually take a look at the article and count how many "facts" or "assertions" there are relative to how many of them actually have a "source", much less a |verifiable source, attached to them. Consider the Allies Characters section first, which depends on only two inline sources (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/wartime-heroism-the-real-hero-of-the-great-escape-471769.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/may/11/guardianobituaries.secondworldwar). There is nothing about Alvin Vogtle in either of those articles (obituaries about Eric Foster, a technical advisor for the film), so that set of assertions lacks sources. Neither source mentions the kind of motorcycle the fictional character Hilts rode in the film, or anything about it being anachronistic, much less ''how'' or ''why'' it was decided to use a 1960s era model bike in the production (if indeed it is a 1960s model). Neither obituary references the assertion that McQueen insisted on the motorcycle scenes despite lack of historical basis. The assertion about Hilts's likelihood of execution rather than solitary confinement appears to be complete |speculation. In fact, only the last two sentences in the Hilts passage are supported by credible sources and should just be covered in the film article (which they are already). In the next five listed characters with any kind of content attached to them (a character list is already in the film article and does not need duplication here) there are at a minimum 10 assertions, of which only three seem to be supported by a source of some kind. Of those three, http://www.historyinfilm.com/escape/real10.htm one is completely unsourced in itself and is not a |reliable source. This is in only one section of the article. There are literally dozens of other assertions in the rest of the article and only five ''non''-inline citations cover them. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing if four of those five sources actually support the very few passages to which they're attached since they are hardcopy and not online. However, I doubt that the creator of this article has them either since they and the related material were shifted from the main article; I would not attribute a source to material I'm adding to an article &ndash; even if I'm just copying it from another Wikipedia article &ndash; without first |verifying the source is valid (otherwise we're just citing Wikipedia). All I'm asking is that editors actually look at the article and the meager list of sources. (It's interesting that those who characterized this article as well-sourced left the Unreferenced tag in place, although JuleH's identification of possible sources is productive
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOR||WP:RS||WP:V)