Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plenty O'Toole

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 merge to Diamonds Are Forever (film). The argument that this term would make a useful redirect seems strong enough to me to prefer merging over deletion. Editors should consider merging material to both Diamonds Are Forever (film) and Bond girl, and it may also be a good idea to change the redirect target depending on the editorial decisions made. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty O'Toole[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:V/WP:RS since 2005; I was not allowed to just redirect the article, was told I "should nominate them for deletion" instead. Niemti (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You received bad advice - if the redirect is contested, then a merge discussion should take place. Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works is an essay, and shouldn't be used as a deletion argument - just because the article is lacking references and criticism, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted. In fact, the subject is notable, as Bond girls generally are - a google book search reveals plenty of hits. St Anselm (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my comments were not advice. The editor had redirected the articles after improperly applying merge tags without discussion. I undid those redirects. In response, he made it clear that he felt those were not notable and should not even be merged, just redirected. For his intended desire, it would be better to go through the AFD process and have it closed as redirect than to create a merge discussion that will never be taken part in. I'll form my opinion on keeping/deleting later. Advertising at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters would probably get some editors who understand the notability guidelines for characters best. Ryan Vesey 02:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "a google book search" or your feeling about "Bond girls generally" (a great most of them NOT having Wikipedia articles), this is about the Wikipedia article Plenty O'Toole, which was created in 2005 and in the 7 years since then been edited only to this sorry current state. --Niemti (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "it's not about a google book search"? You've appealed to WP:GNG, which says that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it can be presumed to be notable. The google book search turns up many such results. Remember, the quality of the article is not a reason for deletion - see WP:RUBBISH and WP:NEGLECT. St Anselm (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only "reason to deletion" is that I was forced (told) to go with way, being somehow not allowed to simply redirect a 7-year-old Stub-Class, plot-only and 3KB long fictional character article with a total of 1 reference (to a fansite). --Niemti (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article clearly fails the general notability guideline of Wikipedia, and it does not serve any purpose to have an independent article about a minor character in a single film. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuSasori's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Diamonds Are Forever (film). The article currently reads like the author was beating off while he wrote it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There should not be a standalone article for the character but it is a likely search term, and ergo should redirect, likely to Diamonds are Forever (I'm surprised that there's not a list of James Bond girls (there's Bond girl but no list for that)). --MASEM (t) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Minor character who appeared briefly in one film only: the info can sit happily within Bond girl - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Masem. Cliff Smith 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable minor character. These pages belong on a Bond fansite, not Wikipedia. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:58, 12 September 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.