Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. WP:SNOW, there's no chance this will close with a consensus to delete. j⚛e deckertalk 19:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (film character)

AfDs for this article:
James Bond (film character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) was prematurely closed in September, when the article was redirected to James Bond (literary character). The same editor who created that redirect has recently recreated the article, thereby circumventing the original TfD, with no deletion review having taken place. The original rationale: "Redundant to James Bond in film", still applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is true that a previous version of this article was nominated for deletion for being redundant to James Bond in film. As you can see at the previous AfD there was no consensus, but it was redirected it after the author of the article agreed to develop it in his sandbox. The article was therefore not deleted for covering a non-notable topic, but because the stub was redundant in its current form. Here are the two article versions for comparison:
First version that was redirected.
Second version that is fully developed.
The fact is the casting and cinematic interpretation of the James Bond character is a clearly notable topic that has been the subject of much secondary coverage. The developed version of the article is well sourced and covers the topic in an encyclopedic manner. The article is a credit to Wikipedia and there is absolutely no reason to delete it. It is neither redundant to James Bond in film or James Bond (literary character), which cover the production background of the film series and the literary background respectively. There is no significant overlap between the three articles, so deleting the article would result in the loss of substantial content. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "at the previous AfD there was no consensus", but ignore the fact that the previous AfD was prematurely closed. By you; even though you had opposed. No content need be lost; any original content can be incorporated into the pre-existing article, to which the more recent one is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You AfD'd it because you felt the article was redundant, which it was, as it stood. The author agreed to develop it in his sandbox and he redirected the article. The article simply didn't exist any more, so I closed the AfD since I didn't see the point of continuing an AfD over an article that no longer existed; everyone has better things to do with their time. Regardless of how an AfD is closed, an editor is entitled to recreate an article that is a substantially different version, which is the case here. If SchroCat had simply recreated the old version of the article with an extra paragraph or two I would reverted it myself, but he's created a comprehensive fully sourced article that clearly covers distinctly different ground to the article you claim it is redundant to. Betty Logan (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the present substantial article bears little relation to the one discussed (inconclusively) in September. We now have 3 substantial and completely different articles: James Bond (literary character), James Bond in film and James Bond (film character). I would recommend that editors read all 3 properly before opining. Oculi (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of inquiry, why does Wikipedia need a seperate article for James bond as a literary character and as a film character, it's the same bloody character, why not just one page, it's like having 2 pages for Harry Potter or Hermionie Granger as both a literary and a film character, pointless in my opinion.Seasider91 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fair question, but not a fair comparison. The Harry Potter character appears in seven books by a single author, and has been played by a single actor. By comparison, James Bond has an extended literary canon: besides the Fleming books, you have the many continuation novels by different authors, so there is a lot of ground to cover before you even get to the film casting. By the same token, the character has been interpreted in over 20 films by seven actors for fifty years, and the casting of the James Bond part is actually something of a cultural event, and then there is all the comparative analysis to cover too. You simply don't have that scale of coverage with Harry Potter. If you were to merge the articles it would be well over 100k, so it makes sense to divide the literary heritage and the film interpretations. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are significant differences between the seven film Bonds alone (compare Niven to Craig, for example), let alone between the interpretations of the actors and the literary Bond. Actually there are significant differences between Fleming's Bond and the character as covered by Gardner and Benson too; the James Bond (literary character) article covers those differences as well - all well covered by reliable sources, as you would expect from a GA-rated article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure that this argument about duplication is correct. I definitely see the article about the film character to be a separate entity from the literary incarnation, and I think that are distinct, notable and historical enough to warrant separate coverage and examinations. It also does not seem to duplicate James Bond in film because that's a treatment of the novels as a whole in film. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply repeating "it's redundant" doesn't cut it, and no evidence has been supplied to show where there is any overlap and I see nothing at WP:DEL-REASON that could possibly be applied here. There is clear blue water between this article and the JB in film and JB (literary character) articles. My "keep" now means that there are 16 editors who have said keep, and only the nominator who thinks the article must go. Could I suggest that the AfD is pulled and we can all get back to writing the encyclopaedia - we're moving into angels dancing on the head of a pin territory here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Betty Logan. At 100k, the merged article would become bloated and a distraction as a result of the sheer length, so it does seem the right thing to do to divide the literary version from the film interpretations. It would be helpful Andy to point out the overlap, per SchroCat's concern as I am stumped on this too. -- CassiantoTalk 05:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep One of the most notable popular culture figures with a staggering amount of coverage in reliable sources. This article is clearly appropriate and encyclopedic. I see no major overlapping and it is not redundant at all, James Bond in film covers all aspects, a general overview by film, this article centres around characterization by actor who played James Bond and focuses on information not yet covered. Major discredit to us to nominate this article and not think that we had reasons for creating it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep James Bond in film is about the series as a whole, this article is about the specific character. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename There's a fallacy in this title that it really isn't about the film character, but the actors that have played Bond - there's some discussion as to what elements each actor and the changing production team brought to the character, but for all purposes, there's no clear distinction made between Fleming's Bond and the movie Bond - they are meant to be the same character. My suggestion is that this really should be named "Actors who have played James Bond", or "James Bond actors" or something, which keep 99% of the content the same and fits the new approach. The alternative, which could be done, is to follow the Doctor Who example - the Doctor article describes the main character (here, the eq would be James Bond (literary character)), and then separate pages for each "iteration", like Tenth Doctor. I do think considering the film a separate character from the literary one is a falsehood and the title or article approach needs to be fixed to address that but the information is fine to keep. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a topic notable in its own right. The scope is well-defined. I do not see it as redundant with James Bond in film because this article focuses on the character and the actors who played him. The other article follows the production of the various films over the years. Of course it will touch on the casting of James Bond in the process; topics are not going to be completely separate from each other. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i suggested a redirect to the literary character article in the first afd, due to the articles short length, and the fact (noted above), that its the same character. We normally dont want 2 articles for one person, whether real or fictional. In this revised version, the content is so extensive, and apparently notable, that placing it as a section in the literary character makes for too long an article. Splitting the character into the two articles makes sense, as long as there are adequate links both ways. I am neutral on whether the original AFD was seen to completion properly, and feel that is irrelevant now. Good article editing should trump any procedural concerns, per WP:IAR, i suppose. Renaming as "actors playing bond" is a possibility, to be discussed at the articles talk page, but the content as a separate article should stay regardless.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable topic, as Bond is a well-known popular culture figure. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Bond_(film_character)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142209638"