Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day


 * 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 per WP:HEY, WP:N. Needs more sources for verification of some sections. Keeps' arguments are better than the deletes', and the trend has been in favor. Not my thing, but it does not violate policies. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists solely of plot, production minutae, and trivia; it has zero reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which are necessary for both Wikipedia's verifiability and notability requirements. I originally prodded the article, which was reverted by  w/o edit summary. Tangentially, I also prodded sub-article Giacinta "Jinx" Johnson which was deleted; same user recreated as Giacinta 'Jinx' Johnson which I also include in this nomination for the same rationale. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually there are now 8 references and this is a tiny fraction of what could be written about them.  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's better, but only the Berry one and the Madonna one are even tangentially about the character; at best, they describe the actor and at worst they describe Uma Thurman instead. I'd support merging those two referenced facts; the rest should still be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Certainly does not qualify a list of allies for every James Bond movie in existence.--WaltCip (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Must agree with nominator, the lack of secondary sources and general information of the article make this article nothing more than a list that could be integrated into the main article of the film. Xtreme racer (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Die Another Day. Characters weren't in the books, so they don't have obvious notability, but I think someone can unmerge it one day if someone's interested enough in Halle Berry and Michael Madsen's contributions to Bond lore. Alientraveller (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep I have been interested in Halle Berry but found only one source for Jinx. If more are available on every character then keep, otherwise speedy redirect to film. Ultra! 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally keep Sources are in. Ultra! 14:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Merging might bloat the parent article - although I suppose it could be trimmed. However, per WP:LIST, this article is satisfactory. It would just need to be referenced and written from a neutral point of view.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No references to independent sources. Overuse of non-free images. The JPS talk to me  10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Overuse of non-free images? Then be bold and remove the images. No references is sign for improvement, not deletion.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just expand with encyclopedic information that isn't just primarily in universe. This is possible and mergin with the main article would bloat it unnecesarily. Consistency is needed and by deleting this page then bascially you are saying why not delete every page on the chaarcters which would be a very unfortunate thing to do. I suggest you keep the tags and request that referenced information is added which doesn't just relate in universe  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article consists of plot from Die Another Day, and is duly appropriate there. If merging that film's plot back into its own article would "bloat it unnecesarily" [sic], then that says that the plot needs to be trimmed, not that we should expand it into it's own separate article.  It's been neigh 17 months since this article began failing basic Wikipedia tenants of being referenced with reliable secondary sources that evidence notability; if not yet, when will this actually constitute an article and not a plot and image dumping ground?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't like your deletionist approach to content however inadequate it is. This isn't the first time you've tried your hands at deleting something film related. I agree however that it shouldn't have been sitting there for 17 months without developing   ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That non sequitur seems like a very poor means of countering Thor's otherwise good post.--WaltCip (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Notability" is not a Wikipedia "tenant", nor is WP:PLOT. Don't be ridiculous. And if you want secondary sources, here's over 180 of them. Stop wasting our time. --Pixelface (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment maybe you should take a look at a similar AFD. igordebraga ≠ 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously a sub-article of Die Another Day and perfectly consistent with the other articles in Category:Lists of James Bond allies. WP:PLOT doesn't even belong in WP:NOT, "trivia" is not against policy. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Die Another Day has been reviewed by over 180 film critics. Those are reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and can be used to expand the article. And "notability" is actually not a requirement. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if notability isn't a requirement then why do we have the policy that non-notable articles should be deleted? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is debating about the notability of Die Another Day itself. The question is, why do we have a sub-article about it?  We could have multiple sub-articles about different aspects of the film.  We could describe the locations in detail, the vehicles in detail, the weapons in detail, and the character in detail -- all using nothing but in-universe information.  However, WP:PLOT clearly indicates that in-universe information should be supported by real-world context.  The characters in this article are elements of this film.  They are not analyzed in depth; they are perceived as part of the film in criticism of it.  This is information that could be a wonderful part of a James Bond Wikia, and we could use Wikipedia to explore real-world context about the topic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not have a sub-article? Sub-articles are usually created because an article got too long. If you don't want a sub-article then merge this into Die Another Day. We gain nothing by blindly following WP:PLOT to the letter. There are over 180 reviews of the film and if you want to, you can add whatever real-world context you want to this article. Nobody's stopping you. Of course the characters are part of the film. That's why those reviews apply to this list as well as the film article. Film critics don't just say whether a film is worth watching or not. They often analyze various people's roles in the film. Nobody's stopping you from writing about these characters on Wikia. Go ahead. --Pixelface (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid entry in the allies/henchmen/allies/villains collection of the James Bond films. Articles like this are useful to prevent the spawning of articles for each character, and bloating the main film article. If I recall there was talk of a spin-off film of Jinx, so real-world context of the main subject in this article is not impossible. --Canley (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a perfectly discriminatory list.  It's simply a representation of information elsewhere on the wiki which is notable and verifiable per the many reviews of the film, presented in a different form.  Celarnor Talk to me  10:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without merging. These characters are not famous beyond a single film, thus there is no reason to have a sub-article of nothing but plot detail.  If there needs to be clarification about the background of a specific character, it can be mildly expanded at Die Another Day, though it could definitely use some real-world context about each character and role.  This sub-article clearly violates WP:PLOT.  There should not be this much information about the film without any context around it.  If the characters were recurring beyond this one film, then perhaps a case could be argued.  However, this article is nothing more than plot detail and also abuses WP:NFC in having non-free images that are used for characters whose significance are hardly declared. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Good list, sub-article. Can be referenced.  Time should be given for referencing, as there is no deadline.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment except for the Berry quote, there's no real-world commentary or analysis here to reference. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with no merge. There's exactly one sourced statement, which belongs on Halle Berry's page - and is already there; the rest has no real-world coverage whatsoever, and doesn't belong anywhere, whether on this page or as a section of another.  As such, the disputed spinout guidelines don't apply. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually there are now 8 references and this is a tiny fraction of what could be written about them.  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete If anything, mention of these people belongs in the main article. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Well it looks much better than it looked a few hours back. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Several of the characters have independent notability, as per recently added references. It may be possible in the future that content on some of the characters who are not independently notable may be merged back into the main article, but that is an entirely separate thing. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Everything notable isnt necessarily encyclopedic.  No RS sources specifically discuss the subject 'List of James Bond's allies in Die Another day'.  There is nothing like encyclopedicity by association.  Just because Die another Day is encyclopedic, doesnt mean every triviality about it becomes worthy of its own article.  Merge all this info into some other article if you will, but this article by itself is simply contrived fancruft. Sarvagnya 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I would hardly call the wikipedia we have today a traditional encyclopedia anyway to be honest its developed far too much and in far too much detail in places for that. What written encyclopedia would have articles on most films and characters? If wikipedia was a conventional encyclopedia several hundred thousand articles would be thrown out like that. Wikipedia is here to provide information on all branches of knowledge from the deadly serious to the seemingly trivial but it is information all the same and all content must be useful to somebody in some form. This is what makes it so unique in that we don't have the restrictions of a paper encyclopedia and can cover more topics and in more detail than any other encyclopedia could possibly hope to achieve. Now I fully agree that there ar emany articles I think should not be included in wikipedia. Personally I have a loathing for Pokemon and manga but that doesn't make me want to axe all of their articles down an afd because I don't consider them "encyclopedic". I;m sure they are useful articles to somebody and this is what wikipedia is about. They provide information in my view about a trivial and "unencyclopedic" subject but they still provide information and know-how to somebody, however young or old. " Everything notable isnt necessarily encyclopedic" is one of the poorest quotes I've ever seen in the history of wikipedia. It is precisely the task of an "encyclopedia" to make some decision on what is notable and to include it at the expense of what we consider not notable.   ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- even if it were to be useful to someone somewhere.  What is next?  Wardrobe of all allies of James Bond in Die Another Day?  I'm sure somebody somewhere will be interested in it.  There has got to be something called encyclopedicity. Sarvagnya 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh be reasonable. There are reasonable boundaries to what is utterly absurd and what is just about acceptable for wikipedia; don't twist my words again. You wouldn't even have commented here if you hadn't have found John and Shahid had commented here. Since when have you ever cared about anything other than carnatic music and literature and "copywrighted" bollywood images and POV?   ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not on contributors. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, kind of a standard to have these pages for James Bond pages, no point deleting one... The Dominator (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand I don't doubt for a second that notability exists, secondary sources do exist commenting on the characters with the Rotten Tomatoes reviews providing a treasure trove of information - certainly every character in the list will be mentioned by a number of those reviews. I'm aware that notability from the film and series (which are obviously notable) is not inherited, but then with secondary sources being available it does exist it just needs to be proven.Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into the an article for all the characters. ; but I mean truly merge, not eliminate, or reduce to the single line on the "cast" section of the present article. incorporating most of the material here.  The reason for not keeping it separate is that the list is not too long --there are only about a dozen significant characters-- so we dont need separate articles for the 2 sides. There's usually a compromise solution. I still havent figured out why people working on these topics dont take them, or take them and try to subvert them. DGG (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I merged it yesterday and it looks ridiculously bloated in the main article. The sister article is highly appropriate  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 10:29, 1 April 2008 (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.