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. ChetblongTC 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of James Bond henchmen in The Living Daylights[edit]
Two names. Just not enough to sustain a "List" Vikrant 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not much more to say about it...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
split or expand i would suggest moving the page to Necros and removing the lesser signifcant character. The information on Necros is valid enough as any other Bond character and that should not be deleted. I say move to Necros or expand the list and add missing henchman. What about the jailer at the Afghansitan Soviet base prison etc♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000? 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a sub-article of List of James Bond henchmen. There are 21 sub-articles in total, see Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen. --Pixelface (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much of a list when it's all in-universe information. Looking at the other sub-articles for "Lists of James Bond henchmen", there seems to be overkill of in-universe information, not to mention excessively decorative use of non-free images. I suggest putting these up for deletion, too, and revising List of James Bond henchmen to have the actor, the role, and only a sentence or two about the role in the film. Scratch all infoboxes and non-free images and fancruft from minor henchmen -- they should be only entitled to individual character articles where the notability is clearly established, like Auric Goldfinger (though that particular article is in questionable shape). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
disagree well I strongly disagree with Erik's sentiments here. There is nothing wrong in covering them in more detail, particularly for a genre as huge as James Bond but some of them need cleaning up. I think the infoboxes are tidy and useful. I see his point about too much in universe information though, but it should be possible to balance the info given if it is done properly rather than seeming to be fan based ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000? 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my concern is that it's all in-universe information. Wikipedia only favors in-universe information when there is real-world analysis available. I understand what you're trying to say about the scale of the franchise, but notability is inherited isn't the best argument. I'd support extensive coverage if there was more to say in the real world besides the actor and the role, but I doubt that this is true for all these henchmen. They're fictional characters that appear once and are not genuinely made famous outside of the context of the film itself, if they were even worth noting in that particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see what you mean. Some of the henchmen included only appeared for a minute or even less. I wouldn't have any objections to merging all the characters into the one list or even better why not e.g List of characters in Goldfinger, List of characters in the Living Daylights etc which could cover the major characters henchmen and allies and give it more of a chance to cover more information than just in unvierse. E.g on casting etc etc. Part of the James Bond theme though is the henchmen vs the allies though and I quite like this distinction that is organized at present. There should be enough info available though on lesser "notable" characters to include both aspects of knowledge ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000? 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Neutral. Per assurances below, I'll AGF and let the appropriate WikiProject handle this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While acknowledgeing the "in-universe" concerns expressed above, I believe that there are sufficient sources on the various characters to produce out of universe information later. Such information should be added, as per the in-universe comments above, and if it proves that the individual characters listed are not particularly notable individually then perhaps their entries could be removed later, but I am certain that, with the huge number of sources on the Bond books and movies, there is content relating to the "out of universe" content on most of these characters. I do believe that the comparatively new Bond project will be working to provide such content in the near future, including me as I find time, and that we will remove or merge any entries which don't meet notablity requirements. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed to neutral based on this assurance. I'm not a fan of articles with nothing but in-universe information, but the WikiProject's intended approach is probably more amicable than more WP:FICT saber-rattling. I hope that this topic and other henchmen-related topics can be reviewed and improved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge - Merge into list of henchman (like other franchises do), with out-of-universe commentary and such. Agree, notability isn't inherited by default, each article has to make its case. AfD is inappropriate IMHO, as the information is notable, but just not deserving of its own article. David Spalding (☎✉✍) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There may only be two, but it would 1) ruin The Living Daylights page if merged. 2) Every James Bond film has an article in the List of James Bond henchmen in ... To delete it would break the cycle and guidelines set out (Unofficially) by WikiProject James Bond. 3) If we merge in to List of James Bond henchmen, we would start merging others, and suddenly have the problem we previously had with a very long messy article. 4) Some characters could be notable enough to have their own page, but they don't, so we can allow other minor characters get a mention. 5) These list of articles can be expanded, they just haven't had dedicated users yet. SpecialWindlertalk 20:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent but would be desirable to see it expanded. JJL (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as preferable to articles on the individual ones. DGG (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpecialWindler, Dominik92 and JJL. Cliff smith (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per SpecialWindler. El Greco(talk) 15:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other films' "henchmen in..." lists, but with strong recommendation to refactor as prose. I agree that merging the lists alone would be ugly and even worse. However, there is plenty of call for an article about the villains within the 007 franchise, as long as it is prose and is mainly real-world content about the creation and evolution of the Bond villains. I'd daresay such an article would have a far better shot at featured status, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:55, 17 February 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.