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. NawlinWiki 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Bickle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod; template was removed by anon and reverted, which is against policy. Original prod reason was "Totally pointless rehash of the main article on the film." Procedural nom; no opinion. Chick Bowen 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find nothing wrong about the fictional protagonist of Taxi Driver.--Edtropolis 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the meter running. The pop culture references tilt it just enough. You tryin' to delete me? You tryin' to delete me? You tryin' to delete me? Then who the hell else are you trying to delete... you trying to delete me? Well I'm the only one here. Clarityfiend 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 30th best film villain is notable. Calgarycalgary 20:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The page needs references and sources. Personally, I'd redirect to the film and cover anything important about him there. FrozenPurpleCube 21:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Taxi Driver, with maybe a sentence or two of expansion about the character in that article. There's very little here that isn't covered in the main article, as this is almost entirely a repetition of the plot plus the interminable Youtalkintome-cruft, excuse me, I mean "popular culture" section, which under no circumstances should be reproduced in the main article. Otto4711 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would rather see the pop culture references in this article than in Taxi Driver and I see no reason why that list should be lost. - Pharaonic 11:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - in the absence of the cultural references section, what would your opinion on keeping this article be? Otto4711 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Overview section is just a repeat of the film plot and should be drastically trimmed. (I may get to it later, if it's still there.) I've copied part of it to Taxi Driver. Clarityfiend 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Based on this sentiment, I would like the closing admin to take note of the large number of stand-alone "in popular culture" articles which are pretty much identical to the pop culture section of this article that are nominated and deleted on a regular basis and weigh that when considering opinions that are in whole or in large measure based on the disposition of the pop culture segment. Otto4711 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can't help thinking we should be discussing character pages in general. Do we have character pages, or put all the information on the film page? The Godfather and Vito Corleone are good examples of articles that describe the character's integration into the plot on one page, while describing the character on another. Perhaps Taxi Driver should be edited accordingly, while Travis Bickle remains? Then again, The Godfather had an ensemble cast while Taxi Driver didn't -- putting all that on The Godfather would result in an enormous article. If the cast is small, redirects may be preferred (though it'd be inconsistent). Note that we have many pages that replicate information between film and character -- Jack Torrance, Stella Kowalski and Baby Jane Hudson, to name a few. -FeralDruid 09:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FICT is instructive: Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work. If an encyclopedic treatment of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article. In this instance, the article is not an encyclopedic treatment of the character and the article on the film is not so long as to require a split. Otto4711 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 17 June 2007 (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.