Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Robinson (James Bond)


 * 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 Delete - character is already in every available list of characters. The merits of the article as it relates to numerous policies have been brought up in this discussion - however, the two main policies of contention appear to be the general notability guidelines and JUSTPLOT's relation to notability. Looking at the general notability guidelines, the stipulation that the sources describe the subject (in relation to the real world), is not met here by Lane's book, which is simply a recap of the movie world. Similarly the a master thesis does not meet the editorial integrity to ensure its reliability as it is not a peer-reviewed work. The extrapolation from the master thesis must also be considered in this light, though it appears to be the only source which supplies information regarding the character's significance as it relates to the real-world impact of the character. The BBC article does not mention the character in any significant way. When looking at the article from the arguments to JUSTPLOT, I will quote what I feel to be the relevant paragraph: ''Per the Manual of Style for fiction, articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should describe their subject matter from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded, and should not solely be a plot summary. Articles should also include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis), alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters, and setting.'' I see no evidence that this article meets the criteria set out in the above paragraph and as such I must conclude that a merge is the best option for this article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Charles Robinson (James Bond)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evident independent notability, reliance on a single source affilated with the subject (an official guide), constant removal of improvement tags and merge proposals by other users (the latest one), remaining a stub since 2005. --Niemti (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you havn't bothered to look for any doesn't mean there aren't any and your obsessive tagging of this article is neither warranted nor welcomed. There is one tag in place which is correct (one source); the others were removed because they were not needed. Your last set of re-directs and deletions from the Bond characters are 'still being cleaned up by others, after you refused to clean up the mess you created and having more work to do because of your poor approach to article management and development isn't helping. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you "havn't bothered" to prove anything doesn't mean doesn't mean "there are". (No original research, Verifiability) My "obsessive tagging of this article" (and your obessive removal of improvement tags) ends here. --Niemti (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of answer is that? Try for something a little more mature than "says you too". What I have done is run a news search on one of the databases: there are references there, as well as in other non-Bond universe work. The character also appears in more than just one film - he appears in a couple of the novels too, meaning there are additional things to write about, rather than just a one-film flash in the pan. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An excellent sort of an answer. --Niemti (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't edit other users comments: it's poor etiquette. Spend your time doing some background research instead. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you "spend your time doing some background research instead" if you want the article to not be deleted. I gave you a plenty of time already to write a more proper article, but your response was always just a removal of my tags, not to mention the previous 7 years, so better do it quickly now. --Niemti (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Be aware: just identifying appearances in works is not sufficient for notability. How was the character conceived, how did critics take him in reviews, etc. Given how little screen time that the character has, I have a hard time believing that these sources exist. --M ASEM (t) 18:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge into character list I will concur that there isn't much here to support a stand-alone article, in fact there's none for notability. How many times a character appears in media is irrelevant to whether or not they should have an article on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that: there is sufficient supporting information to support notability which can and will be added in the near future. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then there are two routes you can go: you can add it now, or you can build it up and when you have sufficient material, spin the character back out of the list. Just because I'm voting merge doesn't mean I'm prejudice against the article existing at all, just in its current form it's not going to work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep' Character which appeared in several films. Notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete per Kung Fu Man. As a modern film character you would be expected to easily find sources through Google but I am not finding any. This fails WP:NOT and WP:N among other policy/guidelines.  Because its a disambig term, it is not a viable search term and ergo the article shoudl be deleted after the merge is complete. --M ASEM  (t) 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Flawed logic to say that "its a disambig term, it is not a viable search term": one two new sources added in and more to follow. There is now one official source, one unofficial and one academic. If had looked rather than blindly tagged, he may also have seen this source and others. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ )
 * Simply appearing in multiple works is no evidence of notability. We are looking for secondary, critical coverage about the character. --M ASEM (t) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The added sources simply re-identify the character within the work of fiction and provide no secondary/out-of-universe context; we are still failing to meet the GNG here. --M ASEM (t) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schrodinger's cat is alive's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Merge per the concerns by Kung Fu Man and Masem. This article fails WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to remind you of the exact wording of GNG, as TWO of the sources fo not fail to meet this criteria:

General notability guideline

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.


 * If you STILL think they fall outside GNG, perhaps you could point to the exact wording which, in your opinion, GNG has not been met? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of the three sources, the Lane book does not appear to be secondary from what preview text I can see. It is a third-party book that recaps the franchise, making it a primary source. This doesn't help support notability at all.
 * The Jutting work which you can see is a published Master Thesis, and appears to be a secondary source. However, the reliability of master theses have always been in question since the quality needed to complete one varies from school to school; furthermore there's no information on the expertise of Jutting here, compared to established film critics like Roger Ebert. The claims it makes on Robinson here are sourced to the Pfeiffer work, so the only "new" pieces are those of the author stating an opinion as opposed to any factual basis. Again, if it was Ebert making those opinions, it would be different to deny inclusion as a secondary source, but here, it's effectively a random guy's opinion on the Internet.  This is unusable as a source.
 * That leaves the Pfeiffer book, and while I can't see what it quotes about Robinson, extrapolating from Jutting, the information is behind-the-scenes info about actor selection and character portrayal - not a lot, but some. Arguably this is a secondary source because it is giving such insights but it is also not independent since it is an authorized guide.  It also begs if the coverage is significant enough.
 * Reading through all these, the only facets of the character that are not directly related to the movies is about having to cast a new character to be M's aide, and choosing a stoic actor that played well against Dench's M. That's definitely not significant coverage.  Since its still fine that the character would be covered in a list of characters, this snippet of information is fine there, but in no way justifies a separate article from the GNG. --M ASEM  (t) 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Staggering. The Lane book is secondary. It looks at the primary source and does not just recap it, but examines it: calling it primary is mystifying. Jutting is an academic work from a respected university and this thesis is cited in other books. What makes these less relevant than some journalist about which swathes of Wiki-editors seem to have an obsession? Go ahead Masem, delete if you really want to, but you are doing Wiki a great disservice by taking such a narrow interpretation of the guidelines. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been involved in trying to figure out and establish notability for fictional aspects for about 5 years on WP. I'm pretty sure I know what to be looking for here, and this article just does not have it from the sources given as opposed to your belief it is a "narrow interpretation". Again, from the little I can see of the Lane book, all it appears to do is summarize the work in a factual manner and does not transform it as required for a secondary source. I may be wrong because I can only judge about 5 preview pages, but if anything, it is best a tertiary source, which we can't use for notability.  Again, a master thesis is not the same as a peer-reviewed academic paper, and past consensus at WP:RS is that is one has to be careful to rely on such due to the irregularities in the standards for master thesis review even if the university it came from is highly respected; we look to journalists as we can review their past work and judge their reliability based on volume of background compared to a student out of a graduate program.  (When I look at this thesis, I really have to question the rigor of the course, since it simply seems to be a personal opinion paper with little scholarly content).
 * But even then, even if all these sources were secondary, we basically have only two "out of universe" facts to consider, that's far far from "significant coverage" that the GNG requires. We would not give a separate article for characters like this but instead discuss them in a list, which I will note easily can contain all the information already on this page. --M ASEM  (t) 06:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, you carry on taking a narrow interpretation of the guidelines. I just hope this time the editor who proposed this charade has the decency to clear up the f-ing mess he makes, unlike his last set of re-directs and deletions, which a lot of people have spent a lot of time clearing up and have still not finished, after he declined to sort out the mess he made. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a narrow view. Simply, notability by the GNG is demonstrated by having "significant coverage in secondary sources". You haven't shown that. A couple of factoids about the actor selection across only 3 works isn't significant coverage. --M ASEM  (t) 16:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already said you carry on seeing what you want to see: we'll have to agree to disagree. What I'm particularly interested to see is if you or the nominator of the deletion take the time to clear up the mess he makes, or whether he will walk away and refuse to sort out the cluster-fk leaving others to tidy up after him yet again. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect/Merge - fails WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:N and maybe WP:V. Cyan Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NOTPLOT requires reliable source information on 1. reception, 2. significance, and 3. concise summary of the Charles Robinson (James Bond) character. plot summaries can be used to meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG, even though plot summaries can be from the James Bond works themselves or merely what the Wikipedia editor remembers from the works. Since WP:GNG is met by MOS plot summaries, that means we only need some reliable source info on reception and significance of the Charles Robinson (James Bond) character to meet the remainder of WP:NOTPLOT. Seems reasonable that at least some reliable source will mention reception and significance of the Charles Robinson character. Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries - whether from first or third party sources - without any additional commentary are inherently primary sources. Further, as a character from a recent work, (read: existed well after the establishment of the Internet) if there were sources on reception and significance, they would have been easily found by now.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only is your keep vote based on a dispute with WP:NOTPLOT and fails to state the central reason why the article was nominated, by !voting "Keep", the burden lies with you, and it is your job to actually prove that the refs actually exist. Cyan Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 10:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Warden (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What editing dispute? --M ASEM (t) 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? The nomination talks of "constant removal of improvement tags and merge proposals by other users" and there seem to be multiple editors here with a history of fighting over this article.  Nobody seems to want all mention of this character to be expunged from our coverage of the James Bond setting and so this bickering is only about the way in which we cover them - a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.  Warden (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Were it just a merge with a redirect, you might be right. But this is not a searchable term, and (assuming that the admin closes this as anything but no consensus or keep) deletion of this would be the necessary closing admin step, though there's a reasonable parts of text to merge. Were it a non-disambiguated title that could be a reasonable search term, and the nom was for just merging to the list, then yes, the AFD is pointless. --M ASEM (t) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The title is fine for searching as the article shows up high in the rankings for a Google search of "Charles Robinson". And there's no sign of a consensus to delete here so you're just whistling in the wind. Warden (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Searching "Charles Robinson" should bring up the Charles Robinson disambig page, on which this character is listed (and were this be deleted, that character should be a pointer to the character on the list of James Bond Allies, so still searchable); but the term "Charles Robinson (James Bond)" is not a reasonable search term and we would be delete this in normal practice. And I'm only working on the possibility, not assurance, this will close in a non-keep, non-no-consensus fashion, and hence why you can't claim a "speedy keep under 2.d" possibility. --M ASEM (t) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The current title is a reasonable search phrase because Charles Robinson by itself is too common a name and so some qualifier will always be needed to supplement it. (James Bond) seems quite natural in this case as these keywords seem to be the primary way of identifying the context. Warden (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The speedy keep reasoning is defective. SK2 reads, in part: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and ... nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." There are now delete and merge !votes from uninvolved editors. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merger is not a valid option and so those !votes are technically invalid and should be discounted. Also the discussion has lasted longer than 7 days already and can be immediately closed at any time. Warden (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, counselor, but the intent is clear. !votes to merge ("Delete and merge", per your link, is treated as a "merge" !vote) by a previously uninvolved editor is not "unquestionably vandalism or disruption". Whatever a closing admin decides, the speedy keep !vote was pointless. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome as you demonstrate, by example, how this discussion continues the acrimonious bickering without there being the slightest possibility that the delete function will be used. My position remains that the discussion should be closed immediately to minimise this waste of time per WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable, including because Colin Salmon is the first black actor to portray the character. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to Merge per Kung Fu Man and Masem. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please re-read that BBC source you added. That was about talking about casting James Bond, and mentioned nothing about this character.  Since Salmon was the first actor to portray this character, of course he'd be the first black actor to portray the character. --M ASEM  (t) 13:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * merge as the reasonable solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article ; I am, like MASEM, very liberal about fictional characters, but they need to have some sort of role in the plot, and he doesn't. I prefer to go by some such distinction appropriate to the actual subject than the details of what happens to constitute the available sourcing, and I think that applies in both directions.  DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge: Non-notable for stand alone article. My own Google searches turned up no reliable indepedent sources that substantially discuss the character. Meets none of the criteria for any of our notablity guidelines. We do not base articles on in-universe promotional materials and fanzines and blogs. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into character list. The BBC article focuses on the actor, not the Charles Robinson character. The other sources mentioned appear to be James Bond encyclopedia's; of course their going to cover all of the minor characters.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.