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. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day[edit]

List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Undue weight to a topic which could be covered (and should be, in an abbreviated form) in the Die Another Day cast list. Does not assert notability through sources covering james bond henchmen in the film. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this should probably constitute an AfD for all "List of James Bond henchmen in..." articles - there's a list for each film. Also, delete or merge with List of James Bond henchmen, if there's anything worth saving. – Toon^(talk) 21:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These lists have been created as part of consensus to prevent the main articles from becoming too long. As far as I'm aware WP:FICT does not prohibit them. The nom is welcome to propose a policy to ban such articles, of course. Otherwise there's no point singling out only one film of 22 or 23. 23skidoo (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS about why it doesn't matter there's other shitty articles like this; I'd get to them all if I had the time. WP:FICT is a rejected guideline at this point, and doesn't matter in this dicussion. I'm basing my arguments on WP:NOR, WP:WAF and WP:UNDUE. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. (You didn't expect that, did you). It is generally considered that "List of..." articles are useful in that they prevent the creation of numerous NN articles about the individual characters, and per WP:SPINOFF. However, this doesn't preclude them actually being sourced, which this one isn't, leaving it vulnerable to charges of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. It has also been a magnet, like many such articles, for fair-use image overuse, but that's still not a reason to delete it.Black Kite 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article wholly consists of unsourced plot, film quotes, and trivia. If the specific in-universe detailing of these characters are particularly important to the plot of Die Another Day , this content should be part of the synopsis at that article; there is certainly no need for a whole sub-article to detail and exposit another article's plot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and up-merge or redirect to Die Another Day, List of James Bond henchmen, or List of James Bond characters in Die Another Day). I can see where the (weak) keep !votes are coming from, and the James Bond franchise is certainly successful and popular enough to have some bits of real-world info for every character - but seriously - a separate sublist to summarize two hours of plot? (A TV show character list usually summarizes dozens of hours of plot). WP:BHTT is not a good keep rationale, and I want to see some improvements towards something like List of Pulp Fiction characters before supporting a separate list of sub-group characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing the other lists, I'll change my vote to Upmerge into List of James Bond characters in Die Another Day. One okay list is better than two terrible ones and a barely acceptable one. (See also my !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day (2nd nomination)). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The testmaster says keep. 5 Pillars yeah Testmasterflex (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how this is a valid keep? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfDs are not a vote - this isn't adding to consensus or improving chances of any outcome. – Toon^(talk) 13:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, in which fashion are you contesting the points under which this article was nominated for deletion? If User:Testmasterflex likes it, that's not particularly compelling discussion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The testmasters opinion in this AFD is compelling. Remember WP:FP. BooyahTestmasterflex (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh man, I'm so confused by you! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How is this any less notable than notable than say, List of characters in the Cloverfield universe? Cheers --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 06:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above response to 23skidoo for why this is not a valid reason to keep the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – Toon^(talk) 13:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It contains no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -I fully agree that this article needs a great deal of work, primarily because it needs out of universe information and referencing. I have always been opening to mergin the characters by film. What I strongly disappove of however is the way in which this article has been obviously nominated for deletion as a way out of the dispute that has surrounded it for the last few days which had resulted in an ANI report. May I say that this nomination seems to have been done to prove a point and done so rather childishly in the circumstances. I seriously doubt this would have been nominated today but for the image and taggin issue that preceded it. I am open to discussion, however I haven't been able to sort things out because I'm suffering from a serious computer virus which is strictly limiting what messages I can get through. It took me half an hour to access this page. Referring to content as "shitty articles" from an adminstrator is not exactly setting an example to the community however bad he thinks it is. It is delibrately aggressive and mocking and shows a lack of respect for other editors. I only split the article. I didn't write the content only split it. Mostly IPs have written it so I agree it is pretty lack lustre rather than "shitty" as the nominator so descriptively commented. Personally in a traditional encyclopedic sense I think all lists of fictional chcarcters are WP:FANCRUFT. However as we all know wikipedia is far fomr a conventional encyclopedia and there are ways in which such articles can be informative to those interested in them. Ideally it would all be summarised in the main article but wikipedia isn't a paper source and there are limits to how much we can cover on one page which is the only reason why such lists exist. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dispute on the article between you and I had nothing to do with this AfD. I have intentionally not voted on this AfD. I don't appreciate being called "childish" when I had nothing at all to do with this AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said I was referring to you with this AFD? I can clearly see it wasn't you who nominated it, but the decision to nominate the article for deletion at a time of a dispute isn;t exactly the most tactful thing to do is it, whoever it was that nominated it? I;d rather we could have discussed the image deletions rationally on the talk page before you went off to ANI premataturely and made me look like I was abusing my tools which 99% are a massive help to wikipedia and maintaining thousands of articles. I certainly wasn't going to waste time with edit warring. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could certainly help discussion by not referring to me (or anyone else for that matter) as "childish" and my edits as "vandalism". I intend on removing the images from all henchmen articles in Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen, so if you want to keep them (despite them violating policy) I suggest you engage in non-insulting discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing that because there's been a lot of activity on this page recently regarding a separate point of contention invalidates the nominator's concerns as detailed? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I've added references to the article and will be adding more when I get access to them. Rick Yune's character led to real world controversy due to objections in both N and S Korea to portrayals in the film. Indeed, there was enough of a real-world impact that one could arguably spin off the article on Zao. For example, there was a Chicago Tribune article on the subject (behind a paywall, am attempting to get access to currently) and there were apparently a variety of articles in the South Korean press on this topic (although I can't read Korean so I can't determine how relevant they are for our purposes). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've (easily) included the cited production information about the Zao character into the parent article's cast listing. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:53, 10 September 2008 (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.