Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oddjob's hat

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 Oddjob. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddjob's hat

)

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

There is little of merit in this piece of fancruft that is not already in the

talk) 09:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: It has sufficiant neutral coverage and 3rd party sources to pass
WP:GNG. Besides, I can't see where the section where it was on Mythbusters or Weapon Masters would fit into the Goldfinger article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

It could fit into the Goldfinger article the same way that the Ursula Andresses bikini fits into the
talk) 09:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Those were done in context of relation to the film. The Hat ones are not, If you check the Weapon Master programme, they don't at one point say Goldfinger but they do refer to Oddjob. That would show that it takes on a separate enitity from relation to the film. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: the auction of the bikini is nothing to do with the film and that's mentioned in the article. Similarly, see
talk) 09:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Of course there wouldn't be reference to the hat in the Golden Gun article, because it wasn't in that film. Besides, the point I'm making here is that the article has sufficiant neutral coverage from a varity of sources to fulfill GNG and should be kept as such. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I think you may be being deliberately obtuse here. The props (bikini in Dr No and the golden gun in MWTGG) are covered in sufficient detail within their own film articles - certainly covering the same amount of information in this finely crafted piece of fancruft. -
talk) 09:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

It's hardly fancruft when it goes beyond James Bond. The fact it is used to demonstrate chakrams or that it inspired video games shows that it is more than fancruft. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fact that is already covered, along with nearly everything else on this page, in the
talk) 11:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Not everything. The Weapon Masters usage, who made it, the chakram, who owned it before the 1998 sale, the 2002 exhibition in Bradford, where it was auctioned and the 2012 poll are not in there. If anything the stuff about it in the Oddjob article really belongs here as there is more info on it at this page and the info about it is badly written and badly sourced at the Oddjob page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Oddjob's hat treated like the bikini of Ursula Andress, it should be kept as a separate article. The bikini is an article that's separate from the Dr. No (film) article: White_bikini_of_Ursula_Andress. Fagles (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oddjob. The hat does seem to have expanded beyond the original film, but not IMO sufficiently to rate its own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article easily meets our notability guidelines. Merging with a broader article is indeed an option (a good one in my opinion) but this is not a reason for deletion, indeed it is a reason against deletion (
WP:MAD). Thincat (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There is little of merit in the nomination which seems only to be based upon the argument-to-avoid of
editing and licensing policies. What's needed here, instead, is expansion of the article. For example, see Memoir of a Special Effects Maestro for detailed technical facts about the prop which have yet to be added to our coverage. Warden (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge: Not independently notable from the character, sorry
p 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

You've got it backwards. The character is mostly just another thug. The article about the hat has many more sources and these demonstrate a history for the item which has persisted long after the actor had died. The sources cited for the character are, in fact, mostly about the hat. Warden (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two different television shows have made replicates to demonstrate how well it works, so it has had coverage outside the film. Dream Focus 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge per Erik) A proper merge to
WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Michael, I think that the hat is rather less notable than the USS Enterprise and the lightsaber. The latter two are recurring elements in their respective fictional universes, and I think that the elements' designs have received extensive coverage. There are a handful of interesting factoids about Oddjob's hat, but I do not think it can make up a separate article. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is
an acceptable alternative... but does not require an outright deletion of a topic that is covered in multiple sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
search engine test in Google Books and Scholar, and while I found results about Oddjob's hat, I do not think that there is enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Oddjob and his hat are repeatedly closely associated, so I think it makes sense for the hat to be covered as part of an article about Oddjob. I would like to mention that the book Ken Adam: The Art of Production Design has some content about the hat (specifically, Oddjob's electrocution). Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - This is the type of article that may cross all the t's and dot all the i's for the GNG, talking about it out of context of either the character or the film makes it difficult to understand (particularly its use in the film which is then part of the Mythbusters comment). The title "Oddjob's hat" remains a valid search term and thus merge rather than delete makes sense. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Masem above, I agree that the GNG is met. However, I see no reason to mandate a merge as an AfD outcome, given that it has sufficient depth of independent RS coverage to justify its existence. A merge outcome is a possibility, but by no means a foregone conclusion that should be mandated as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an editorial decision. I'd have to concede that the GNG is met. There's enough coverage in third party sources to
WP:NOT). But this is one of those circumstances where a cluttered stub article could be written as a nice couple of paragraphs and added to the main character entry. That creates the potential that the whole Oddjob topic/article could one day reach good or featured article status, which does better service to our readers. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment: As I have opined above, I cannot and will not close this. But I would suggest to whomever does so that there is A) no consensus to delete,B) there does seem to be consensus that the information belongs somewhere within the project, and so C) a discussion about a likely merge belongs on the article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's unnecessarily bureaucratic. It's not an error to suggest merging at AFD.
    WP:NOTBUREAU states that "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." If there's a consensus to merge (and that is overwhelmingly the case), we shouldn't reject it because we insist on polemic keep/delete outcomes. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - We have no consensus to delete and the general consensus here seems to be for either a "keep per no con census" or a "close as keep and discuss a merge"... and I am not adverse to either one. A
      policy set up for just such action. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      I just wanted to make a comment on Shooterwalker's point original point. The stub class only came about after the person who AFDed this put it there after I reverted his unexplained redirect. Before that it hadn't been classed. Nothing out of the ordinary there however, the page has also appeared on the front page as part of DYK and since the DYK rules do not permit stubs to go on the main page, it can't be a stub. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oddjob. Certainly warrants attention, but not it's on page.DanLancaster (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Without Oddjob it's just a hat with no notability whatsover. With Oddjob it becomes notable. Where is the benefit to readers to separate? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oddjob as per other merge votes. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to let admins know, there is a separate merge discussion at the talk page going on. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of people who have indicated a merge (and that includes a large number of those that have said "keep, but merge"), the merge discussion itself seems rather redundant: A simple merge decision should be taken on the basis of the obvious consensus above. -
talk) 17:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Iconic weapon of notable villian of notable franchise. AFD is
WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 20:49, 31 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.