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 delete. All arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSUSEFUL. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of henchmen of James Bond villains[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

List of mostly extremely trivial characters, including the famous "Warehouse Guard" and "Thug with Yo Yo." Any important characters actually worth covering would be in the movie cast lists and novel plot summaries already. There is no justification that this is needed for general encyclopedia benefit, so it's not a proper fork. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is a collection of minor plot details. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Unsourced listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This is a list which is useful to our readers. We keep such lists. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What possible role does this fulfill? It's not a standard character list, and there is no editorial need for an expanded character list for such trivial characters. Even if you reduced it to actual characters, the film/book articles handle all character plot summary. Nobody is going to end up here outside of links from some redirected articles that should either be retargeted to their film/book of origin or outright deleted. Wikipedia has no need to list literally every character in literally every series. This is definitely a cutoff point. TTN (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

informational, navigation, or development purposes Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need a justification to back up that reasoning. Without an actual reason, that can be used for literally anything. Its current incarnation fails all three of those points. TTN (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion. My opinion is that the list serves an informational and navigation purpose. We keep these lists. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<crazed laughter> Hahahaha! <crazed laughter/> I've been expecting you, Mr Burst! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I'm having is "List of shoes by color worn by James Bond characters" could be a valid list if we're using such basic reasoning. There needs to be some kind of reasoned out threshold of information we list, even should I ultimately disagree with you on that cutoff point. TTN (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Other than the odd one, Bondian redshirts interest only the most fanatical of fans. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. This list serves no recognised informational purpose.Cjhard (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this might serve our core readership - students. The Bond "universe" has gone on for so long that many younger scholars who need thus information in one place can only find it here, with us. Over 10,000 people viewed this page in the past 30 days. I think this is a valid purpose. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many people need to know about "Thug with Yo Yo?" Any actual core character is covered on the films' cast lists, so it'd be best to let people interested go to a fan wiki where they can see detailed information about these characters. Though I'm sure even the Fandom threshold of inclusion would discount half this list. Even if revamped into a more formal character list, we'd need to thoroughly gut half the entire list and duplicate information present in each film, which would fail WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there's really no non-idiotic reason not to. The list has a clear focus, concerns characters in a long-running book, film, and video game franchise, and its contents are easily verifiable in published sources. Surely what is worthy of published print encyclopedias is worthy of inclusion on the ultimate online encyclopedia by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Seriously, what is the pressing need to remove this content that has been worked on since 2006 and to instead keep viewable for public consumption this discussion? Yeah, I know someone will link to "it's useful" or "its harmless" or whatever, but those are actually valid arguments in this case, because what we have here is something that a handful of accounts don't like and so would rather we have a discussion about the article for anyone to read than an actual article that a half dozen odd people think is not interesting for whatever anti-logical "reason." --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Delete: an unsourced list of fancruft which largely duplicates material from articles about the movies.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this was just a list of the film henchman then it duplicates material and wouldn't be needed but it also includes characters from the books including by other Bond authors such as Amiss and Gardener and Bond videogames so I do believe it is useful to have this information in one place and considering there are 10,000 views a month the reason for deleting is not strong enough. This is essentially a split from The James Bond franchise article (or however its titled) so it does not have to be independently notable as the parent topic is very notable, and all the info is easily checked from the primary sources, so keeping the characters descriptions short also helps verifiability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and Atlantic306 on if this being just a list of minor characters, it's not needed. Per Atlantic306, though, if this list has useful information, one alternative might be to Draftify this list to excerpt and selectively merge out the useful information into related articles. Friendly pinging MJL here, who is known for his or her creative solutions and alternatives to break a logjam of a fairly even split. Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Now you're giving me a reputation to uphold!
If you ask me, the delete side is right to point out that a lot of the list is trivial ("Thug with Yo-Yo" now personally being my favorite Bond villain- 100% deserves a backstory lol). However, Draftify does sound particularly useful in this situation. My suggestion would be to cut the list down to only henchmen played by notable actors or which have a stand-alone article (like Vesper Lynd).
I'd offer to help clean it up, but I currently seem to have my hands full with Lists of Xeon microprocessors. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Lugnuts - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per reasons of those who want to keep this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2019 (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.