Deletion of List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day

Comment: to Die Another Day, List of James Bond henchmen, or List of James Bond characters in Die Another Day). I can see where the ''(weak) keep'' !votes are coming from, and the James Bond franchise is certainly successful and popular enough to have some bits of real-world info for every character - but seriously - a separate sublist to summarize two hours of plot? (A TV show character list usually summarizes dozens of hours of plot).  is not a good keep rationale, and I want to see some improvements towards something like List of Pulp Fiction characters before supporting a separate list of sub-group characters. &ndash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BHTT)

Comment: These lists have been created as part of consensus to prevent the main articles from becoming too long. As far as I'm aware  does not prohibit them. The nom is welcome to propose a policy to ban such articles, of course. Otherwise there's no point singling out only one film of 22 or 23
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: How is this any less notable than |notable than say, List of characters in the Cloverfield universe? Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: You didn't expect that, did you). It is generally considered that "List of..." articles are useful in that they prevent the creation of numerous NN articles about the individual characters, and per .  However, this doesn't preclude them actually being sourced, which this one isn't, leaving it vulnerable to charges of #PLOT and . It has also been a magnet, like many such articles, for fair-use image overuse, but that's still not a reason to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF||WP:NOT||WP:OR)

Comment: I fully agree that this article needs a great deal of work, primarily because it needs out of universe information and referencing. I have always been opening to mergin the characters by film. What I strongly disappove of however is the way in which this article has been obviously nominated for deletion as a way out of the dispute that has surrounded it for the last few days which had resulted in an ANI report. May I say that this nomination seems to have been done to |prove a point and done so rather childishly in the circumstances. I seriously doubt this would have been nominated today but for the image and taggin issue that preceded it. I am open to discussion, however I haven't been able to sort things out because I'm suffering from a serious computer virus which is strictly limiting what messages I can get through. It took me half an hour to access this page. Referring to content as "shitty articles" from an adminstrator is not exactly setting an example to the community however bad he thinks it is. It is delibrately aggressive and mocking and shows a lack of respect for other editors. I only split the article. I didn't write the content only split it. Mostly IPs have written it so I agree it is pretty lack lustre rather than "shitty" as the nominator so descriptively commented. Personally in a traditional encyclopedic sense I think all lists of fictional chcarcters are . However as we all know wikipedia is far fomr a conventional encyclopedia and there are ways in which such articles can be informative to those interested in them. Ideally it would all be summarised in the main article but wikipedia isn't a paper source and there are limits to how much we can cover on one page which is the only reason why such lists exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: This article wholly consists of |unsourced |plot, film quotes, and |trivia.  If the specific in-universe detailing of these characters are particularly important to the plot of ''Die Another Day '', this content should be part of the synopsis at that article; there is certainly no need for a whole sub-article to detail and exposit another article's plot
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:PLOT||WP:TRIVIA)