Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Say hello to my little friend!

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 redirect to Scarface (1983 film). Rudget 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello to my little friend!

Where do I begin? I was very surprised not to find a speedy category that applied to this article. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. Article was prodded and the prod removed by the editor who created it without making any substantial improvements. I favor quick deletion per WP:SNOW. Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Merge not sure if WP:NEO applies here, but there's gotta be something! Dusti^{talk to me} 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a speedy criterion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, and notice I changed from speedy to merge. Dusti^{talk to me} 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very popular catchphrase indeed, but I'm not sure if it warrants a full article; I haven't turned up any reliable sources for it even though it's widely known. I say Merge to Scarface (1983 film) unless it can be proven notable enough for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Scarface. Great line, not much value as an article. Dr. e X treme 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, now that I look at the article history again it was nominated for a speedy under G4, which means it's a recreation of a previously deleted article, but the editor who created it removed the speedy tag. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was only previously speedily deleted and was never deleted as per an XfD discussion so it's not eligible as a G4 speedy. Metros (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to parent article in the same way that This is Sparta! redirects to 300 (film).--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Redirect -- not seeing much separate coverage to warrant it's own article. It is already mentioned in the scarface article, noting that the line is famous. The funny thing is... the line has been parodied so many times, I wonder if a sourced article could be created? I doubt it, it would probably fail other policies. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the movie. If nothing else it'll discourage recreation (I recommend also creating a redirect for the version without the punctuation). 23skidoo (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I PROD'ed it since there's no speedy for catchphrases (and G4 was inappropriate): based on discussion above it would be best to redirect to the parent article. Acroterion _(talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see the utility (or harm) of a redirect. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the movie; the utility of a redirect is that for people like me who didn't know where the phrase came from and who might happen to search for it one bored evening, it's actually quite interesting to find the initial source (and a redirected title makes a search more likely to succeed). Agreed that the unpunctuated version should be rdr'ed as well. -- phoebe / (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have absolutely no objection to a redirect, both with and without punctuation, but it must be redirected to Scarface (1983 film), since Scarface is a disambiguation page. Also, there's no reason to merge, since the line is already incorporated into the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the article and I would like to add that this version, in my opinion, it's more adequate than a redirect, not to mention than a speedy deletion. It's a very popular catch phrase, given the fact that Imdb lists this quote referenced in at least 15 different movies. And I don't see why it can have a separate article. Paulinho28 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scarface (1983 film), without prejudice. It is theoretically possible to have a separate article, if there was a probable discussion of the significance of the phrase with proper secondary and academic sources. However, this version is just a list, and provides little value independent of the film's article.-- danntm ^T _C 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to deletes above: The nominator has stated that "...I have no objection to a redirect.... Are you willing to allow this to happen? Dusti^{talk to me} 16:41, 14 April 2008 (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.