Deletion of Oddjob's hat

Comment: There is little of merit in the nomination which seems only to be based upon the argument-to-avoid of .  The proposition that we can move facts from this article to another page is absurd because deletion would obviously hinder such action and be contrary to our |editing and |licensing policies.  What's needed here, instead, is expansion of the article.  For example, see ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WrzFd0RSaaEC&pg=PA46 Memoir of a Special Effects Maestro'' for detailed technical facts about the prop which have yet to be added to our coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT||WP:PRESERVE||WP:GFDL)

Comment: or '''merge''' per Erik) A proper merge to Oddjob is a consideration, but the topic of the character's hat has indeed received coverage in reliable sources... and such information suitable in an independent article would have to be included therein. That such sources speak toward the charater and usage is no more a concern than sources speaking about the USS Enterprise in relationship to Star Trek or a Light Saber in relationship to Star Wars. It is expected that iconic plot devices would be spoken of in relationship to the primary topic. Not a deal breaker. At a Christie's auction in 1998, the thing sold for £ 62,000.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/173353.stm  It has been written of and discussed in context in multiple books and multiple reliable sources... just what is expected by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It has sufficiant neutral coverage and 3rd party sources to pass . Besides, I can't see where the section where it was on ''Mythbusters'' or ''Weapon Masters'' would fit into the Goldfinger article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as an editorial decision. I'd have to concede that the GNG is met. There's enough coverage in third party sources to , and provide real world context about the hat so it's not just a summary only description of a fictional object (something that Wikipedia articles are ). 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:verify notability)

Comment: to Oddjob. I performed a |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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Search engine test (WP:SET)