Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond fandom


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

James Bond fandom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable third-party sources demonstrating the notability of the James Bond fandom. One source covers a fan who constructed a James Bond car, three others are for articles that mention a fan site in passing, and the rest are first-party. The contributors to the James Bond article feel the fandom article lacks any useful content. IsaacAA (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources which demonstrate the notability of the fans of the James Bond books, movies, &c. Here's a selection:
 * The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader
 * The Rough Guide to James Bond
 * Amazing & Extraordinary Facts - James Bond
 * James Bond in the 21st Century
 * Ian Fleming and James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007
 * Licence to thrill: a cultural history of the James Bond films
 * Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan
 * Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond
 * James Bond: The Legacy
 * A Brief Guide to James Bond
 * On the trail of 007: media pilgrimages into the world of James Bond
 * James Bond, Peter Pan, and a sticky night of love: Irony and masculinities in amateur animated videos
 * Popular geopolitics past and future: Fandom, identities and audiences
 * Homemade Hollywood: Fans Behind the Camera
 * The James Bond Phenomenon
 * The Signs of James Bond
 * Bond for the Age of Global Crises: 007 in the Daniel Craig Era
 * Warden (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anyone validate that these works are substantially about James Bond fandom? If so, then this seems like a notable topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have most of these books (at least the Bond ones), and there is very little on fandom in them. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But they do say something, right? For example, Licence to Thrill: a cultural history of the James Bond films, says "The proliferation of James Bond fan clubs and magazines, moreover - most of which focus on the films rather than the original novels - is ample testimony to the existence of an international fan culture for whom the figure of James Bond has a special significance."  This seems to be very clear recognition of the phenomenon and tells us that it is both international and substantial. Warden (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of the books make passing references, but nothing notable enough. Bond fandom just isn't notable enough. - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A passing reference is one that's tangential. When a book about the cultural influence of James Bond talks directly about James Bond fandom, that's bang on target. Warden (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really: it's a book about the cultural history on the Bond films. In the 306 pages of considered and academic prose, you've picked out the one and only reference, and it is a passing and tangential one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not the one and only reference in that work. For example, there is a section with the bold-faced title Fan magazines and websites.  Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tagged a few of the much vaunted "35 sources as being dubious and unreliable, not to mention at least one dead one (I haven't checked how many others are also dead or borderline). As for "For example, there is a section with the bold-faced title Fan magazines and websites. Q.E.D.", firstly there is no QED there at all, and secondly, which book are you talking about and which page? If you're going to rely on the reliable sources to prove your point, please could you indicate them clearly for everyone? - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The detailed citation is . That section says things like "The following James Bond fanzines are worthy of particular mention ... The articles and correspondence in these publications provide a useful insight into the way that the James Bond fan culture engages with the films."  Warden (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah - hidden in the bibliography. Again, it is, at best, a passing mention in relation to the strength of the sources used (which are also described as "anecdotal and uncritical"), and this time isn't even in the main body of the book. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a passing mention - -two chapters (Part II of three) devoted to Bond tourism and fans. Novickas (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The author of Licence to Thrill describes fandom and its output in the introduction, bibliography and footnotes because he draws on this material in the body of the book. The claim that there is "one and only reference" in that book is false.  And, as Novickas, says, there's plenty of other material elsewhere too.  What we have here are increasingly absurd demands for a shrubbery. Warden (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Shrubbery? What utter nonsense: a more apt term would be to do with your straw clutching. You have listed books above that do not refer to fandom, and that is an attempt to mislead. In some of those that do refer to fandom, the reference is in passing only and not a strong enough basis to have an encyclopaedic entry. There is, of course a level of fandom around Bond, but it is not notable enough to have a serious article. @Novikas, partly the same as above, but perhaps renaming the page as "James Bond tourism" would be more accurate, given the lack of serious reliable sources elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So can you confirm that Mark O'Connell's Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan is not about Bond fandom at all? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete Yes, there is a large body of James Bond fans (myself included), but there isn't enough distinct material here to merit a spinoff article.OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added some material that barely scratched the surface of the fandom phenomenon. The filming locations are major tourism destinations. The JFK fandom alone is worth it - Garry Wills wrote that the Bay of Pigs invasion seemed crazy 'But it made sense to a James Bond fan.' Lots more material out there. Like an exchange between Anthony Burgess and Kingsley Amis about wanting to be Bond. . Wanting to be Bond is also discussed at length in this book . Novickas (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a bunch of trees in isolation make a forest. Notable fans don't make a fandom notable. If, however, Colonel Warden's would be properly incorporated into the article, it would show notability. IsaacAA (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge Not really a notable enough subject for a stand-alone article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. The offered sources do not convince me of its notability, as SchroCat has disputed that they are primarily about this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Dubious sources, seemingly an attempt to mislead by the author. No core work on the fans. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments of Colonel Warden regarding sources. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been found covering various things, showing different aspects of the article's subject do get coverage.  D r e a m Focus  15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I hope those who !vote will consider the article's current state. 44 references after some cleanup, tho one or two still need some work. The lead still needs some work too, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Yes, some of the refs use Warden's book suggestions. WRT the suggestion that the article should become Bond fan tourism; the book mentioned above ([) is scholarly and talks about the fans in the context of their wish to tour the sites. There are other sites that just talk of Bond tourism but this book goes further, as you'd expect from a work of this sort. [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like a lot of effort has gone into it. The closer should note that we originally voted on a much different article with much weaker evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep 17 sources should be enough for any one reasonable. CallawayRox (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and rename: First off, this isn't the title that should be used. Furthermore, portions of the article violate WP:NOT and should be deleted, regardless of whether or not they are sourced  p  b  p  00:07, 26 September 2013 (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.