Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day
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
— User:Blofeld, 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:POINT||WP:FANCRUFT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)