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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond gun barrel sequence[edit]

James Bond gun barrel sequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Minor topic though certainly memorable. This is unsourced and appears to be original research. There's a temptation to let it slip because the article is quite appealing, but it appears to be essentially fan trivia. Borderline possibly, but certainly worth a discussion. The relevant section within the main article appears to say enough: [1]. SilkTork 14:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I suggest a merge into James Bond article. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs references for sure, but so iconic it surely is notable. I'm inclined to disagree that an article on the subject is "fan trivia", and consider an article sustainable. --Canley 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and do not merge Very iconic, and too much info for the Bond article, which is why it's separate. And the complainant needs to be more specific about what "references" are needed. Much of the information comes from the films themselves, which are verifiable. Baseball Bugs 16:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence calls the sequence "iconic" - that comes from the editors of the article. That, and the rest of the article, need independent references to support such assertions. That something exists is not enough - it has to be independently verifiable. That an editor has an opinion which is shared by a group of other editors is not enough - the opinion needs to be proved and backed up by sources. That's one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. My suggestion is that this article is an unsourced original essay in the sense that people have seen the movies and formed their own view on the importance, notability and iconography of the sequence without reference to anything other than the films themselves - this is against the founding principles of Wikipedia. It's worth reading Wiki's own article on itself Wikipedia to remind ourselves now and again that Wiki is criticised for "its susceptibility to .... unverified information, uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies, and for favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process." And, for the record, I am not complaining, I am raising the issue of the verifiability of this article in a neutral manner. SilkTork 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the description of Icon. Every one of the "official" James Bond films has begun with this sequence. Call it iconic, call it a "signature", call it "standard", whatever. Baseball Bugs 23:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't iconic. I agree it is. My point is that if any of us as editors wishes to say that something is iconic we need evidence beyond our own opinions to back up what we say. You asked me to be specific about what references were needed, I gave an example from the first sentence. I wasn't implying the films aren't iconic, but that the statement was unreferenced. SilkTork 07:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a reference could be found, but if it obviously fits the definition of the word "iconic", I question the need for it. It could easily be redefined as the James Bond "signature", which is easily verifiable because it appears at the beginning of every official Bond film. Or it could simply say "this appears at the beginning of every official Bond film". The term "iconic", being there or not, is not a deal-breaker for me. Baseball Bugs 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look through Google results in words ranging from "trademark" to "obligatory". It's a bit of both. I think it would be fair to say "trademark", since it is associated with every Bond picture. Other things are "trademark" also. There are various patterns in the Bond series. Maybe that broader subject would satisfy some of the complaints. Baseball Bugs 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard" and "traditional" also pop up. Those are both acceptable, I should think. I'm not finding "iconic", though. Maybe that is, in fact, too strong a word. Baseball Bugs 08:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference from the Daily Telegraph (UK) which refers to "the moment at the beginning where the gun barrel comes up, Bond turns and shoots, blood fills the screen and that music starts up. That, for me, will always be the iconic film sequence." Bond for beginners. --Canley 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively. It's completely unsourced as it stands, relies almost entirely upon primary sources. It seems a little silly to devote an entire article to the evolution of the Bond "gun barrel" sequence in such exhaustive detail. Surely all of the substantive, encyclopedic information presented here can be merged into a short section of teh Bond article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ

• Speedy Keep & Do Not Merge Highly noteworthy, just needs sources. All this work shouldnt be taken as a 'minor topic' - Played a major part in the evolution of title sequences in modern cinema! Frequency24 17.58, 13 August 2007 GMT

I suspect you are thinking of the opening credits themselves, which do attract academic attention, and which are dealt with in an appropriate and economic manner in the main article's (James_bond_films#Opening_credits) section. That section is written with less of the detailed/obsessive Fancruft that can lead the "James Bond gun barrel sequence" article into plot repetition. I am not, despite these comment insertions, rabidly pushing for this article to be deleted. I am raising the issue that we can be interested in and attracted to a subject which may not actually be appropriate for Wiki, and may be doing it harm. SilkTork 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing harm to wikipedia? I assure you, there is nothing that can approach the harm (i.e the undermining of credibility) that comes to wikipedia from the "anyone can edit" policy. Baseball Bugs 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "anyone can edit" policy that harms Wiki - it is what people edit when they do edit. SilkTork 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The "content" allowed by this wide-open policy causes exponentially more harm to wikipedia than any "harm" this article could possibly cause. Baseball Bugs 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and source quite big in pop culture. Perhaps merge with an overview of James Bond opening sequences, music videos of those opening songs, etc. 132.205.44.5 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge. Article's information should be incorporated to the James Bond (films) article. David Pro 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,source, and improve This is a useful and informative article. This presentation is much better than distributing the content among all the several films, that would loose the narrative thread. Granted it needs work, and it needs to exist so that it can be improved. --Tbmorgan74 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent article about a piece of the James Bond franchise, with the common thread in a series that has seen a variety of Bonds, James Bonds. Sometimes, opening sequences (such as in The Simpsons, or the occasional alternate beginning of a Universal, 20th Century Fox or Paramount film, are significant in their own right. Mandsford 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is notable beyond the series itself and has, indeed, become a pop culture icon, much like the opening crawl of Star Wars or the couch gags of The Simpsons. It could use some sourcing, but the subject is independently notable enough to merit its own article. --Hnsampat 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these opening sequences are not notable unless it is confirmed by reliable sources, and by that I do not mean fan sites Corpx 04:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, iconic and notable subject. Article does need some cleanup and sources, but this is a very famous and notable film sequence. Dreadstar † 09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but definitely improve the sourcing. It's notable and fairly well-written; let's just work on the referencing, which is indeed very weak. Biruitorul 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of the material is simply describing what's in the film, and thus is verifiable unless there is disagreement over interpretation of what is on the screen. Films are considered to be their own source. Baseball Bugs 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and prune. No way it could be more than a few sentences worth of notability. Bulldog123 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. An iconic film topic, spunoff from the original Bond article because it was getting too long, and already considerably sourced via the films themselves being primary sources but more sources never hurt. I can't believe anyone doesn't consider these sequences to be notable, but there are folks who have never seen a James Bond movie ... 23skidoo 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes it needs to be referenced, and it is notable. Per Hnsampat's comments above, its no different than the opening sequences of The Simpsons or Star Wars, why pick on this one. This is notable because it is one of the only things that sticks in all (EON) films. SpecialWindler talk 06:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - Rename James Bond opening sequence, rewrite as such and source appropriately. I'd be willing to take part in that. SilkTork 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. Keep it simple. Baseball Bugs 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a good suggestion, but I disagree that we should rename. The phrase "James Bond opening sequence" could refer to the gun barrel, the opening "teaser" (where the action begins or it shows Bond on a different mission altogether), or the song played during the opening credits. The current title, though, is completely unambiguous, so I say we keep it as it is.--Hnsampat 19:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can anyone present at least one reliable source that provides "significant coverage" to this opening sequence? Everyone's saying that sourcing exists, but one has yet to be provided Corpx 07:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Daily Herald had an article on the gun barrel sequence in 1979. --Canley 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, an interesting one is this museum exhibition featuring a 'walk through' gun-barrel, an event covered by BBC news which mentions the GB walkthrough: [2]. Dreadstar † 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, although currently unverfied, I distinctly remember over the years the GB-sequence being mentioned or parodied in television programs of all types, inlcuding news and movie review broadcasts - I imagine there are non-online sources for this if anyone can look them up. I think 'iconic' is a good word for not only Bond himself, but for that opening sequence. A few more refs: [3] [4] [5]. Dreadstar † 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Off-line references could include (I haven't had time to check these) the directors' commentaries on the DVDs. I'm pretty sure one of the 007 DVDs has a documentary on Binder and how he shot (pun intended) the gun-barrel sequence. I also seem to recall issues of Cinefex from Goldeneye onwards have significant detail on how the CGI gun barrel effect was achieved. --Canley 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a TV ad would play for a James Bond film, there would be certain things that they would always zero in on, and hence are "iconic" to the series: "Bond, James Bond" ... the theme tune ... quick clips of action scenes ... Bond's little sarcastic or punny jokes ... Bond Babes and Villains ... and the gunbarrel sequence. Maybe the fact that they use it in every film suggests that they, themselves, consider it iconic... or at least "obligatory". The fans expect it. It just wouldn't be a real Bond film without it. Baseball Bugs 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is OR and at best total fancruft. The opening of a series of movies is hardly notable; where does not come from? We have to be careful when we are passionate about something that we do not loose the reason or applicability of policy; they still apply and are not just tossed aside because we like it. An aside: can you imagine how completely decadent a society is when this much effort can be expended over a bloody movie intro? We have far too much time on our collective hands. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't help your cause to call people who disagree with you "decadent." Your argument seems to be boiling down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Hnsampat 16:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's over the top. The obvious question to ask him, and the one I always ask anyone who takes the dog-in-the-manger approach to things, is this: "If this subject is so decadent, what are you doing here?" Baseball Bugs 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • StormRider says: "We have to be careful when we are passionate about something that we do not loose [sic] the reason or applicability of policy; they still apply and are not just tossed aside because we like it." I agree that we shouldn't let our biases interfere with our work here. However, we cannot toss aside reason or Wikipedia policy just because we don't like something, either. Remember, "passion" can be in the form of love or hate (in this case, hatred of the "decadence" of society). I think plenty of valid, well-reasoned, policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this article have been put forth in this discussion. Also, I disagree with StormRider's implicit assumption that movie openings are inherently non-notable. They can be notable and the James Bond opening is one such case. --Hnsampat 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While unsourced, this article can be made to adhere to the WP:WAF guidelines, as the gunbarrel sequence is an incredibly iconic piece of cinema. Alongside the theme music and catchphrase, it wouldn't be Bond. Alientraveller 12:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and NOT Merge: Yes, needs more source. The GB sequence is definitely significant above and beyond its appearance in the JB films. It's possibly one of the most recognized visual sequence in all of cinematic history. Okay, that may be a personal opinion, but what is not a personal opinion is that this sequence has been spoofed in many times past and recent, in different countries, and in different medium. This along makes it indeed very significant. In fact, due to its iconic status, I'd suggest that this sequence is more significant than the entire JB franchise to the world outside of JB fandom. o 01:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No merge necessary as highlighted above many times over. Yamaguchi先生 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs sources, but it is definitely notable - • The Giant Puffin • 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add sources, such as the Daily Telegraph article mentioned above. Obviously noteworthy and iconic, widely discussed in reliable sources. The article just needs to refer to them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 August 2007 (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.