Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between James Bond novels and films (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Differences between James Bond novels and films
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago and the result was to merge the content into the relevant film articles: Articles for deletion/Differences between James Bond novels and films. Further to that another discussion took place at Talk:Differences between James Bond novels and films where it's been noted that there is nothing cited/notable in this article that isn't already covered in the relevant film articles. A redirect isn't really appropriate since the content is spread out over different film articles; not many articles link here so I'm proposing deletion as the most appropriate course of action. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete — The contents should appear in particular articles on movies and/or books. The topic is interesting, but I don't think it's notable in and of itself because the differences are usually treated in reliable sources according to each production, not topically as a single subject. Any generalities best belong at James Bond in film. JFHJr (㊟) 03:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete — Fails WP:GNG. It's too unsupported and too full of WP:OR to stay. - SchroCat (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic appears to fail WP:GNG. No significant coverage has been found using Google, or reliable sources at all for that matter. While the subject itself is relatively interesting, it certainly is not a notable article for a site like Wikipedia. In addition, the article is seemingly written as fan trivia, and looks like an essay. TBrandley 05:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's kind of sad to lose such a wonderful piece of fan cruft. Strikes me as an original essay though. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This closed as Merge in August 2010. Why is this still here??? Carrite (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing admins don't do merges, someone has to volunteer to do it, the backlog for these things can be indefinite. This one is so large and complex probably no one wanted to get into it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Comment This kind of material will be impossible to keep out of Wikipedia. Even if it's delete now, fans will just add it back, but in the actual movie articles, which would be unfortunate for a number of reasons. The better solution is to take WP:TNT to this article and keep what few bits are reliably sourced. Every year or so re-visit and delete the unsourced cruft. It will keep cruft out of the main movie articles, and give space for fans to work on creating an article of this type using the best practices of reliable secondary sourcing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of this is already in the film articles already, but in a measured way (looking at how the screenwriters adapted the source novels for the films) and in the novel articles (identifying aspects of the novels that went into films) and in the James Bond in film production history article. And you should note that all the films and all the books are GA rated. However, it's been done in the correct way, all backed up with reliable, independent secondary sources and all fitting the right context. If we delete the unsourced cruft from this article, we'll end up with a pointless stub like this. You should note that the "supporting refs" for this version are 50% made up of fansites and IMDB. I could remove those too, but we'd have only half the amount shown above. Is there really any point having an article for people to play with, when they can just use their sandboxes instead? - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Manual of Style/Film it is legitmate (and encouraged) to list differences that are noted in secondary sources and accompanied by commentary. It is pretty normal for that type of detail to be covered by film articles because it is integral to the film's development, and the net effect is that it makes this article redundant. A consensus from the previous AfD already exists to transfer the material out (which turns out to be unnecessary since it is already covered by the film articles), but the problem is that the suggested redirect target is not appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * SchroCat & Betty Logan, thanks that is information I was not aware of. The fact the movie/novel articles are all GA and this type of info should be in the main articles clearly supports deleting this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per above Comment thread. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article fails the GNG, and it also has too much original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regardless of Wikipedia policies, I personally found the article very useful. However, if it is ultimately deleted, I hope the information contained within will be relocated to the film articles they refer to.  -Fogelmatrix (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that it is already in other articles. The problem with the article as a whole is pretty well summed up by your recent addition: no supporting sources have been used and there is no context for the information at all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the fact that the information is listed in the film's articles is not the point. The point is that the list violates the Wikipedia's Adaptation from Source Material policy, as Betty Logan noted earlier.  Wikipedia is rife with lists and articles that repeat data that occurs in other articles.  In fact, I daresay that most of the "List of" information on Wikipedia is located somewhere else.  The lists exist to consolidate certain aspects of these broader topics.  We certainly wouldn't expect a person to go to every country's individual article if they wanted to figure out how many sovereign nations there were.  I suppose it comes down to whether or not the information is presented in a way that a person would be reasonably likely to want or need, and if it makes access to the data easier and more accessible.  With that in mind, I vote for deletion, despite the fact that I am a contributor to this article.  My own personal experience aside, the differences between films and books is not information that most people would generally want grouped together, as opposed to say a list of James Bond villains or allies.  It's more likely that people would want this information on a film-by-film or book-by-book basis.  -Fogelmatrix (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per SchroCat and Betty Logan above. It's fascinating fancruft and so belongs on a fansite, not wikipedia. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:44, 6 December 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.