Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Montana (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Montana

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

This article is pretty much inseparable from the movie as a topic for an article. MBisanz ^talk 18:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the article to just before the last major revision for discussion, but I'll remain neutral for this. Funny ^Pika! 19:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but without all the plot regurgitation. He's expanded enough into other works and become a pop culture fixture of sorts. Say hello to my little Forbes list. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an issue for cleanup, not deletion. Forbes is just one example of this character's cultural impact. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. If Forbes magazine decides to cover a fictional character, that pretty much clinches the character as independently notable outside its original context. I don't even have to see a second independent RS to know that well more than a single additional one will exist, meeting GNG. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another one anyway: Scarface Rehab: Rappers Obsessed With Tony Montana. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable character that can especially be explored in-depth. There will certainly be overlap of the film and of this character, but I think there is potential to explore the character in a way that would overwhelm the film article. In a way, this character article can be a sub-article of the film article, which would have a summary as part of its general coverage. This book, The Hispanic Image in Hollywood, has a chapter called, "The making of Tony Montana: Phenotypes, violence and fetishism". and both Google Books and Google Scholar seem to show different results explicitly defining the character and breaking it down. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Article needs cleanup, dumping of the plot, and more refs, but anyone who thinks this char is not notable must be willfully ignorant. The character is parodied or alluded to constantly.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep" is not applicable here per WP:SK. In addition, calling the nominator "willfully ignorant" is not assuming good faith. The argument here is whether or not the character can be covered in a way that cannot be done in the film article. Each case will differ, and this character is a bit different from others in not having repeat appearances (unlike Indiana Jones or Harry Callahan, for example). Your listed sources help, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WP:SNOW keep. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:SNOW can apply here. I just mean that "speedy keep" is not applicable based on the applicability criteria listed at the guideline. WP:SK#NOT explains the difference regarding WP:SNOW. It's an appropriate argument for deletion (in terms of how much overlap there is), but the consensus (so far) is that we should keep it as a distinct article anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was more aimed at Gaijin; I probably could've threaded that better. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that I will agree with. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant both probably. SNOW could apply due to the unanimous vote/easy proof of notability. But also I meant the speedy. While I do WP:AGF of the nominator, I think 2a and 2e are theoretically applicable. (Although I admit those are both written in a way which does not allow for AGF). At a minimum, this nomination does not comply with WP:BEFORE, as there is no indication that either C or D were attempted or considered. (Especially since it was so easy to find sources). However, I will admit that MBSanz nomination was based on the thought that the character is inseparable from the movie, and not on notability etc. In any case, I'm fine if the general opinion is that my snow/speedy~vote being not applicable. Such differences of opinion are the meat of wikipedia, and it will not affect the outcome in any case. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up (please add those sources) meets GNG, notable character. Insomesia (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (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.