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 merge to Quantum of Solace. Most participants felt that notability was not established via sources/GNG, but that a merge was appropriate. While there was a wider question about the possible deletion of the redirect, and on the face of it there's no consensus either way, the last paragraph of WP:ATD-M guides against such deletions. As such, I'm ruling essentially a "no consensus" with respect said deletion, without prejudice to a specific RfD on the redirect and it's history in view of the licensing implications. j⚛e decker^talk 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Strawberry Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:V/WP:RS since 2010; I was not allowed to just redirect the article, was told I "should nominate them for deletion" instead. Niemti (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plenty O'Toole. Bond girls are generally notable. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid. This is not about Bond girls "generally", but about the article Agent Strawberry Fields. --Niemti (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, of course, that there are plenty of books about the James Bond films that give significant coverage to even minor characters. For example, Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proposal to delete any "books about the James Bond films that give significant coverage even minor characters", neither. This is about the article Agent Strawberry Fields, which is not new. --Niemti (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at. StAnselm (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Shaken & Stirred, I do not see significant coverage of Strawberry Fields. If there was significant coverage, the article could exist. In this case, the only relevant information comes on page 350 of that book. The book does label Srawberry Fields is the only character of the Revisionist Bond Era, which leads me to believe that there might be more sources that would give significant coverage; however, as it stands, that information should be included in Bond girls. Ryan Vesey 12:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there seems to be some significant material there. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this very clearly fails the general notability guideline of wikipedia, as the nominator says. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content into Quantum of Solace; the notability of the character has not been established. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Quantum of Solace. There is no establishment of the character's notability. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge + Delete Merge to QoS, or to what I'm surprised doesn't exist List of James Bond girls. The "delete" here is that I understand the naming scheme here is used to avoid disambiguation with the disamb Strawberry Fields, but that is the searchable term - I don't see "agent strawberry fields" being used to search over "strawberry fields" for the same character, so this page is not a valid search target. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Quantum of Solace. Not a noteable enough character. Delete as per Masem (talk · contribs). - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Quantum of Solace and delete per Masem. Cliff Smith 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: another reference has now been added. StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. These minor character pages have gotten out of hand. They belong on a Bond fan website. Not wikipedia. For what it's worth, wikipedia deleted an article about notable spy author Ted Allbeury! - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Quantum of Solace, and keep "Agent Strawberry Fields" as a redirect. I agree with Masem that "Strawberry Fields" is the more likely search term, but "Agent Strawberry Fields" is still possible, and it doesn't fall under any of the reasons at WP:R#DELETE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - There are about seventy news articles that mention Agent Strawberry Fields. When Gemma Arterton, who played Bond girl MI6 Agent Strawberry Fields, is mentioned in a news story, they apparently throw a sentence or two in the story about Agent Strawberry Fields. Put all that independent, reliable source information on Agent Strawberry Fields together and I think you could have a nice, tight Wikipedia article on Agent Strawberry Fields. Right now, the article merely is some Wikipedian's thoughts on the topic. Nothing personal, but who cares what you think. Wikipedia doesn't. Per WP:GNG, Wikipedia merely is a reconveyer of what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Until someone steps forward and writes an Agent Strawberry Fields using material only from independent, reliable sources, we should merge. Since the article doesn't appear to include anything from independent, reliable sources, it shouldn't be to hard for the closing admin to merge the little info in the article worth keeping. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in the interest of consensus-building. Article lacks the sources and distinct information to support a stand-alone article, as per the WP:GNG. However, it can be covered in a broader context at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2012 (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.