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.
Keep - I'm not really a regular contributor to wikipedia so I guess my oppinion won't have much weight. But I just came to this article by searching this sentence when I read it somewhere without getting the reference. So having an article about this is usefull if one considers Wikipedia as an encyclopedia one can easily turn to when looking for information. That being said, having a more detailled explanation of the sentence and tying it more to the original movie's topic would be good. Gom 3:23 22 June 2007 (UTC) 218.42.149.66 (talk ·contribs)
WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING are not compelling, and a simple list of occurrences tells us nothing about the phrase, the film, the media in which the phrase appears or the real world. I agree that none of this should be merged to the film article and in fact I'd be willing to bet without looking that this was forked off from that article because the editors there got tired of dealing with it so they decided to turn it into someone else's problem. Otto471115:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I try to avoid the words in AfD discussions because it always seems to provoke this response. I understand and agree with the the WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING guidelines, so by implication when I use the words in AfD I mean within an encyclopaedic context. I guess I need to add the context every time. It is useful encyclopaedic content, and would be of interest to people using an encyclopaedia to research the impact of 1950's sci fi in popular culture. I've come down on the delete side of plenty of lists that I personally found interesting or entertaining, because I didn't think they belonged in an encyclopaedia. I think this list belongs. Capmango17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, selectively, into The Day the Earth Stood Still. The laundry-list of every little occurance in media is not helpful, although some small discusson on its notability and impact on pop culture is agreeable. Arkyan • (talk)16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Arkyan. The phrase has certainly been culturally significant, but let's not go hog wild. Strange, the The Day the Earth Stood Still article contains no mention of it, although it was arguably part of a key plot point in the film.--Ispy198116:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the content was split off from that article, per the edit history of each article. Editors don't want it there. Otto471116:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps said editors are having an ownership problem, then? If it is relevant information to the movie, then it rightly belongs in the article. I don't think the difficulty of maintenance should be a criteria to delete. Tarc16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, mainly just a big fork of trivia, you take that out, you can easily merge the important info (a sentence or two) back to the main article. Biggspowd17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! This is a monument to ... well, something or other that's very nice. And we really should have more of those on Wikipedia. And if Gort ever comes back, we're gonna need this one. I believe WP:IAR is fulfilled in all its majesty if we keep this one, which is something we ought to do every now and then, and it really would be nice to have this article around. I rest my case. Noroton22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps this is anecdotal, but I definitely remember searching Wikipedia for the phrase after seeing it first somewhere outside the movie (which I did not see - yet). But trimming it down a bit and trying to find commentary (as per Eric's criticism) would be nice. Eldar 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into another DayTESS article. I'm positive there is one about Klaatu or even about Gort. I was stunned once to find that someone else besides me remembered "Pulu si bagumba" from an episode of Gilligan's Island. Granted, "Klaatu borada nikto" is more significant than any phrase written for the screen in Klingon or Schwartzian, but still not it's own article. Mandsford02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Interesting enough though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 June 2007
Keep A rather discriminate list that amply serves its intended purpose. Yet another misreading of WP:NOT#DIR, which states "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..." and every single one of these quotes is a direct reference to the phrase that is the subject of the article. Alansohn16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entries are not famous for being associated with the phrase. The phrase being uttered in Rayman 3 does not make the game famous. The large majority of the items in this list are not famous because they used the phrase. When people think of any of these items, they don't think, "Oh, that phrase boosted the medium's prominence!" The only exception on the list I can see is the Star Wars characters being named after parts of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is notable, not just because of its mention in the movie, but because it has become so deeply embedded as a cultural phenomenon, having been used in a wide range of media over a period of decades, as is throroughly documented in the article. It is the inclusion of these dozens of references that establish notability of the phrase and the article. The entries are not proving their fame; it is the notability of the phrase and the article that are being conclusively proven. Alansohn17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you are citing original research -- the firsthand observations of the editors themselves -- to put forward an argument about the film's impact. The article has "See for yourself" original contributions instead of attributable critical commentary about the phrase's impact. This is not an logical 1+1=2 argument -- this is subjective since this topic is bound by cultural standards. The editors themselves are basically listing their own observations and saying, "The phrase was used in these TV shows, so it has impacted that particular medium!" It's essentially indiscriminate trivia because there is no attributable intermediary that observes the film's impact on certain media. The editors are doing that themselves, and that's just plain synthesizing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary means by which Notability is established in Wikipedia is by providing references to the subject. That's what I see in this article. It does not mean providing quotes that say "the phrase 'Klaatu barada nikto' is notable". Every single one of these quotes is a completely objective reference supporting the depth to which the phrase has permeated popular culture. There is simply no requirement whatsoever anywhere in Wikipedia policy that requires that Notability may only be established if it is "reflected through uncovered commentary". Notability has been established. Alansohn17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is being established through original research. This article has no independent and attributable voice saying, "The phrase is prominent in popular culture." Even if there were sources provided, this does not give editors a reason to indiscriminately list bits of trivia to support the viewpoint. I've explained already that the inclusion of the phrase in most listed items do not automatically make it notable. Of course the connection is "clear" -- but is it encyclopedic for inclusion? That's not possible to judge with editor-submitted indiscriminate trivia. I've already said that most of these items are not made famous for including the phrase, and besides having these phrases, there is no relevant connection between the items. There is no independent basis for this article. How is the phrase any more prominent than having in popular culture entities like root beer or chicken? Because it's specialized? You're arguing for an article without merit, because the topic has not been explicitly explored by attributable critics. There is no inherent substance that is not being determined by the editors themselves. I'll be concluding my arguments here because neither of us will bend, and I believe I've made my case clearly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One thing I came across (and I'm done, I promise). Under WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.) Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial." (Bolding is mine again.) This is in line with my argument -- passing mentions are trivial, but entities like the Star Wars characters appear non-trivial. Cheers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but applying some common sense to this arena: Most of the references to Klaatu Barada Nikto are easter eggs; the whole point of the reference is that it is subtle. Capmango18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Random users like myself may well come across the phrase and want to know "where did that come from?" This article told me what I wanted to know. Search engines throw up unrelated results often enough that a redirected search may well be ignored. 212.32.83.78 01:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim, pare, and re-evaluate most entries. Most of these do seem to fall under 'X in popular cultures banner. And I think it would be better for each phenomenon to link back to the movie. In a cursory glance, not many of the list's entries even use it in a context similar to the one intended (the only I can remember myself was from the movie 'Toys', a use that I never understood since I saw that before hearing of The Day the Earth Stood Still ... ). A notable use like that would make an article like this, but as for the rest, it'd be better used as a link FROM the citing work. IL-Kuma 08:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a nicely circular argument. It's notable because people mention it and people mention it becuase it's notable. Otto471122:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the large number of pop culture references can be mentioned without listing every single one. What do the references add to the films that include them other than to have people like me smile a bit? Alastairward 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes a contribution, even if not one of major significance. Deleting it on a technicality makes little sense to me. In fact, the article proves the case for its own existence by demonstrating how widely the subject phrase has been assimilated into our culture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CamdenTommy (talk • contribs).
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.