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 Delete. One commenter contributed a few scholarly references to this discussion. Those might justify an article, but not this article, which is an unsourced list without sufficient context, and which overwhelming consensus clearly seeks to discard. Xoloz 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three wise monkeys in popular culture[edit]

The three wise monkeys in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Yet another cluttered, trivial and unsourced list. RobJ1981 04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've seen some in pop culture articles which should be kept. Then I've seen ones like this. The article is useless - you may as well create a list of cultural depictions of "D'oh". Unsourced and has OR issues. Delete. Spawn Man 05:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable. Gatoclass 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-sourced, a grab-bag for every trivial mention. Delete this before God destroys 40 days and nights of rain again. MarkBul 05:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator) - nomination appears poorly considered. In what way is the article "cluttered"? it seems neatly structured to me. As for "unsourced", the media mentioned in the list are sufficiently accessible sources. "Trivial", yes; but the point of creating the article was to stop the article Three wise monkeys being overwhelmed by these items. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• the point of creating the article was to stop the article Three wise monkeys being overwhelmed by these items - that much is obvious, but the question is whether a subject like this deserves to exist on its own merits. "Stopping article x being overwhelmed by trivia" is not a good reason to create a new article, the proper solution IMO is simply to trim the amount of trivia so that it doesn't overwhelm the original article. Gatoclass 07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, noted. At the time there were various similar pages within Wikipedia so it seemed to be acceptable & encyclopedic to create it. Let it go. Fayenatic (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete The page has one WTF image on it of Faye Wong doing the "hear no evil..." thing - the above user (who created the page) is named after this Chinese musician and is a big fan, see userpage[1] - this is nothing but an obvious (yet oh so clever, I must give you that) fanpage.--Old Hoss 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  At least that's giving credit where credit's due! Actually, the mention of Faye Wong was only added recently, but I created the article months ago as part of the long-proposed merger of Three wise monkeys with See no evil.... Oh OK, you got me, I had in mind to add it eventually. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This clearly is not noteable as per WP:NOTE but it also doesn't meet the criteria for WP:LIST. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for clarification. OK, it's clearly going to go, on grounds of triviality. However, I don't understand the nominator's accusation of "unsourced", nor other commentators' suggestions about OR. The only conclusion one can draw from the list is that the image & proverb are notable & widespread in popular culture; hardly a "novel narrative or historical interpretation", so how does that breach WP:OR? Fayenatic (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia-pile. A couple of notable examples might be merged into the main article, but there's not much here that isn't completely trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a subpage of the talk page. As Andrew Lenahan points out, "a couple of notable examples might be merged into the main article", and it's up to the editors of that page to decide which ones might belong. Talk pages are for the retention of this sort of material that needs editing, as WP:SUBPAGE points out. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article opens in a good way by having a nice text paragraph. The subsequent list format helps show the extent of this topic's influence in popular culture and the two images help keep the article interesting. References, as always could help. Consider this and this. The latter is a scholarly article that discusses them "in the West and their truly astonishing impact on our popular culture." So, here we have a professionally published article that directly discusses their "impact on our popular culture." Please note that it took me less than a minute to find these kinds of sources on dogpile, which further increases my agreement with the essay User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not make a subpage of the Talk page, that's bizarre. Fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying the article should stay, but I have read those and I don't think it fails any of them. Please demonstrate HOW the article breaches those policies & guidelines. If you mean the sub-page idea would fail them, how does it fail the first three? I don't mind rigorous editing, or deletions, but I do get fed up of lazy, empty assertions that articles fail this or that. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no sources, so it clearly fails WP:RS. References to movies, TV series, books, video games, etc., require that the viewer watch or play them, which is a violation of WP:OR, without reliable sources to prove that the things actually exist as the article says they exist, it fails WP:V. And why would we want a subpage of a Talk page for an article which fails so many policies and guidelines? Corvus cornix 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the articles in question fully, as there is at least one source from a scholarly journal that asserts that discusses the three wise monkeys' "truly astonishing impact on our popular culture," something I also posted a few posts above yours. I found that reference relatively easily and so I am sure more probably exist. The fact that a scholarly journal mentions their direct impact in popular culture additional indicates that any claims about original research or erroneous. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astonished reply: References to books requires the reader to read them, so is that a violation of WP:OR? No. I know that OR is a subtle policy to understand properly, but please quote me which statement in that policy supports your assertion. Films etc are primary sources; using these does not breach WP:OR, which requires simply that the editor make only descriptive claims, not analytical ones. The article completely fulfils this policy - indeed, that seems to be the source of complaint! Fayenatic (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equally astonished re-reply: So you're saying that, in order to verify that somebody's claim that such and such happens in a movie, it's acceptable to require the reader to go watch the movie? Please show me where this is acceptable sourcing. Corvus cornix 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You even said books, my friend! As for films: it is not a requirement of Wikipedia policies to quote films only from secondary sources e.g. film reviews. WP:PSTS says that films etc are primary sources, and that facts (but not interpretations) from primary sources can be stated in Wikipedia. Yes, you could verify it by watching. I suppose Wikipedia might add a requirement for references to state the h:mm:ss, similar to quoting page numbers in books, but even the latter is not a requirement at present. So, yes it's acceptable to give no more specific source than the film name. Thus, these claimed facts are verifiable within Wikipedia policy. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as most of it is original research, plus the rest is trivia Corpx 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not original research in the sense banned by Wikipedia policy WP:OR. See above. Fayenatic (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear no evil, see no evil, keep no evil this can safely be deleted without anyone missing it. Many a family snapshot has been taken of three people imitating the three monkeys, with everyone thinking it's very original and clever. Ultimately, it's not any more interesting than three people imitating "The Spirit of '76", that painting of the three marching Revolutionary War soldiers. Mandsford 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep since the family snapshots you mention aren't of even minimal importance , then listing them in an article like this is unjustified. Since the cultural referents here are in material that is sufficiently important for an article, then the relationships are worth including. That's what makes the material encyclopedic--it is the relationship of one important thing to another. DGG (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally, I find myself in agreement with you; in this case, however, the whole concept of this is visual recreations of the 3 monkeys, and I think it's only a step above the snapshot. The Spirit of '76 might be a bad analogy... this seems more akin to holding two fingers behind someone's head. Mandsford 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again, it depends on whether notable artists turn out to have used the work. DGG (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia, unencyclopedic. Keb25 10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I see no harm in pop culture articles, this is just an unprosed, unsourced, list that consists of only trivia, which is a violation of WP:NOT. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not unsourced - it quotes primary sources as permitted by WP:PSTS. Please read the above, and present arguments rather than mere assertions. Fayenatic (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If deleting, permit re-creation as a proper article. The trivia will be condensed or removed. Additional references have been added since the article was nominated for deletion, and these contain material of encyclopedic worth which has yet to be incorporated in the article. Fayenatic (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable pop culture phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep i think that we should keep this article because it shows how well known that the three wise monkeys are legaiamaster will warp your reality 14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SUMMARY (by creator): The article contains trivia. WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOT may be enough to delete it, although the article includes evidence that notable artists have used the motif/proverb. Nominator has declined to justify his other allegations that it is cluttered and unsourced. Other allegations against the article are unsupported or disproved above, including WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Fayenatic (talk) 21:38, 11 September 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.