Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character)


 * 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 Redirect. Article author has redirected the page to another existing article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond (film character)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Redundant to James Bond in film. (Contested A10 speedy) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment the article which may already cover this topic is James Bond (literary character). I have not decided whether 2 articles should stand.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to James Bond in film. Obviously redundant, why is this even here? JoshuSasori (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Accidental fork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think this article is vital for explaining the film character and is devoid of any distracting information which one may read on an article where this subject is simply mentioned. The film character is very different to the literary version and certainly warrants an article of it's own. --  Cassianto Talk   04:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to James Bond in film. If a user wants to write (using reliable secondary sources) about differences between the book character and the film character, James Bond (character) is the correct place; there is no need for the film Bond to have a separate article, which would contain many redundancies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion – The literary and film characters have very different lineages. If the books had remained at the Fleming novels, and the films had remained at adaptations of the Fleming novels (in much the same way as the Harry Potter adaptations) then I would agree that there would be no need for separate articles. However both the literary and film character have diverged: there is an extended literary canon that has never been adapted, and there is the film series that has started originating its own material now they have run out of Fleming novels. In short, James Bond (literary character) and James Bond (film character) is going to cover very different terrain. As for redirecting the article to James Bond in film, this makes as much sense as redirecting Darth Vader to Star Wars; the focus of the in film article is the production of the series, not the character itself. There is easily enough RS coverage of the portrayal of the character to sustain an article, which is surely the grounds that an article's notability should be assessed on? Betty Logan (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: such an article should probably have been started in user space and then moved to article space once it had enough material to justify its independent existence. The article as it stands at the moment is not much use to anybody. Opera hat (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, but many articles start out as stubs. I still maintain there is substantial material covering the depiction/interpretation of the character on film to justify its retention though. If its just the lack of development that is a problem, then the logical solution is to move it to the author's userspace so he can develop it. Advocating a redirect or deletion is effectively saying the article should not be developed at all because the topic itself is either redundant/not notable. Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. As was already pointed out when the "speedy deletion" proposal was, well, speedily deleted, there is nowhere on Wiki where the film character of Bond is examined—and it's a grievous hole in Wiki that the biggest, best-known and most important character in 20th and 21st century film does not have an article to examine him. This is, rather obviously, the start of this article's development and is obviously not the finished article, so to tag it for deletion seven minutes after it has been started seems premature to say the least and it was before the article had taken shape, so to judge it on the first stub isn't doing it justice.

Just as Batman in film has Batman; just as Superman in film has Superman and Clark Kent; just as Tarzan in film and other non-print media has Tarzan, Tarzan (comics) etc etc; then James Bond in film needs James Bond (film character). All other important characters in films series have their own articles, including Indiana Jones and Luke Skywalker. But not Bond. The question is where to put such an article. A couple of comments above (and elsewhere) have suggested pointing at other articles, but these are based on misconceptions of what the other articles contain, or seek to portray:

The aim for this article is to be a GA-rated article to be the sister to James Bond (literary character). Both of these sit easily within the overall aims of the Bond project and provide a balanced and structured examination of the Bond books and films:

As you can see the Bond project does not just invent articles which may or may not have duplicates elsewhere, but ensures a structured, logically planned approach to the development of both the individual articles and the project's output as a whole. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the reasonings provided by Betty Logan and Schrodinger's cat is alive. This article is essential to explaining the film character. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (likely) Merge somewhere, but where I'm not sure. I don't see how this can grow and not duplicate information from James Bond in film. I see two possible routes: that the film tables in James Bond in film be moved to a separate article as most of it is appropriate data to include but are excessive details for the casual reader, such that the info in this article can be placed in there, or alteratively, keep this article, but bring in some of the James Bond in film article on the general style of the Bond character and the flair each actor had (as explained in the film timeline section), to expand this one. I agree that this would then contrast well with James Bond (literary character).  Basically, its a matter of sorting out around the James Bond in film article to make that more useful. --M ASEM  (t) 16:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The James Bond in film article is useful, and what it covers is completely in line with the many other in film articles we have, such as Superman in film, which is FA rated. The in film articles cover a franchise's film presence, and are specifically created to host the various statistical data we have. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the sense of merging it into an article where it would be out of place... you may as well suggest merging it into Mount Everest for all the logical leaps you need to go through. Maybe it needs repeating again: the James Bond in film article is about the series, not the character. There is currently nowhere that discusses the film character and there is no suitable location where the film character can be discussed. It's also worth repeating that this article, as it stands, was the result of seven minutes work and is not the finished article. The finished article will be a GA-rated article with the same balanced and well-sourced approach undertaken for James Bond (literary character). - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying James Bond in films is bad, but its a series with the unique factor that it is nearly universally grouped by the actor that plays Bond as that character is the only constant in the film; as such it is nearly impossible to talk about the character (in film) without talking about the film series. What I'm suggesting is to try to keep how the character is played throughout the series by its different actors all together in one place.  My first inclination would be to put the character in the film page, but I do see value in taking info (not all of it, just characterization elements) from James Bond in film into this one to explain each of the actors and the unique factors they brought to the table as well as alternate actors, etc.   As I think about it more, as long as the "fictional" side of the films are taken out of James Bond in films and put into this article, both will be better.  My caution is that if some type of redistribution of information is not done, you're creating a situation that has too much duplication of information. --M ASEM  (t) 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put in place a redirect to another page, despite the fact that not one argument I've heard here actually holds any water whatsoever, as each and every one of them has been based on a misunderstanding of what this article is trying to be, and the purpose of other articles. A very strange and disheartening event, but congratulations to all concerned that ensures we still have no article about the most important film character of the 20th and 21st century, and still no location in which to put it! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:07, 10 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.