Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exclamations by Robin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of exclamations by Robin[edit]

List of exclamations by Robin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was denied and sources added (although some are dubious--e.g. Holy Smokes Batman.com). This merits a mention at the main article (Batman (TV series)), not a trivial listing of every expression in the history of the series. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep More than mindless trivia. His exclamations are discussed in scholarly sources and according to one have entered the "American vernacular". I think it's useful to have a list to view the range of subjects covered in the Batman series and it is pretty harmless to have such an article. It looks fairly respectable with the sources and content to me. I'd suggest a page move to Holy.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks perfectly well-sourced and formatted. Too much information to be simply "mentioned" at main article. Potentially useful to students of the "American vernacular" and communications studies in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If several books actually discuss this, it meets WP:GNG. King Jakob C2 11:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources do cover this. Keep as is, don't wipe out a large chunk of it later on. Dream Focus 13:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Blofeld. But the website which has clips of the utterances may not qualify as a RS, and does not even specify which episode which instance came from. It would be conceivable that someone might create a hoax website with a compilation of such instances of a popular culture meme, whether it be Spoonerisms or Tom Swifties. Edison (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I would say that I would prefer to see this in some sort of table that could include episode names/#s, references, and context for what prompted the exclamation. However, until we get such enhancements, I would hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater, thus my "Keep" position. KConWiki (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree those would be great improvements. But without a WP:RS, I guess that simply watching all of the episodes and extracting that info be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would that be OR? What is OR does not hinge on whether the work you are consulting is print or audio-visual, fiction or non-fiction, or on whether that work is a primary or secondary source. It depends instead on the kind of statement you are deriving from that work's content and the extent to which you have injected your own interpretation rather than just giving a straightforward description—see WP:PRIMARY. You can certainly verify the dialogue of a TV episode from the episode itself (Boomhauer and the Swedish Chef notwithstanding). postdlf (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Big up Blofeld and Martin for providing the additional material. -- Holybillyholiday
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discovery of an (apparently) reliable source that documents the list Merge to Robin (comics) (or is that Dick Grayson?). I don't question that Robin's exclamations are scholarly and there's sourcing for the two leading paragraphs, but the "full" list is absolutely unneeded per WP:IINFO; the two sourced paragraphs and a few examples can be included at the merge target. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this were to be merged only to one target, it should definitely go in the TV series article as it's a pretty significant element of that series' content, but is just one of many adaptations of a 70+ year character. Dick Grayson#Batman (TV series) could be expanded as well, but I think the show itself is the context in which to discuss the dialogue it used for its version of Robin and the impact of that dialogue. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the TV show works better for the merge, in that light. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because in addition to the above !voters, WP:IINFO doesn't support a merge, regardless of what Masem thinks it says. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure it does. The full list of Holy X phrases is indiscriminate info, too deep a level of detail for a general encyclopedia, and since the only sourcing for this is either a site that likely fails RS or otherwise primary sourcing from the individual episodes, it's excessive and undue details. It would be different if more reliable sourcing catalogued each version , but that's just not done here. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it so. The words you're looking for are excessively discriminate or some similar variation. Trivial, unencyclopedic, or overly detailed might be good synonyms, but an indiscriminate list is one that lacks a unifying theme, not one that is overly detailed. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Batman (TV series). Can anybody explain what policy permits a list of all the things Robin says? That's an obvious example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY:
Wikipedia articles are not:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms...
The subject of what Robin says may deserve some coverage on Wikipedia, probably as part of a wider discussion of the TV show and character, but that is no grounds to have such a long list of quotations. I can't find any other TV shows that get comparable lists of catchphrases, jokes, or memorable sayings. The minimal option would be to rename this to a non-list article on the Exclamations of Robin (if that's really independently notable which personally I'm not convinced of), or better to an article on Robin (character in Batman TV series), but in its current form it fails to meet policies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can these quotations be deemed to be "loosely associated"? I don't quite see how they could any more closely associated, unless he had uttered them all in one single episode. And what if only this sequence of exclamations had achieved such penetration into popular American popular culture that it was unique? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're just a list of "Holy X" phrases, given without context. The fact that Robin said a lot of these, that's valid information to keep, but it is inappropriate to list out every single one. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought the context was provided by the preceding sections. Where else could that be given? Um, Robin didn't just say "a lot" of these, he said all of them. That's why the article is titled as it is. There is no point having any list unless it's as comprehensive as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we're talking about a merge here. Again, I fully agree that WP needs to have some section in some appropriate article about Robin's "Holy X" statements that have entered the popular vernacular. But - do we need to know every single one? No, just that there were a lot of them, and a few examples of how they worked. In other words, we don't need this list article, but we do want the first two paragraphs kept somewhere approprite (as suggested above, the TV show would make sense since they come from there.) There is also a secondary problem in that the reliability of the source for the complete list is not very strong and while it could otherwise be sourced directly to every episode where the phrase was uttered, that would make this list weigh far too heavily on primary sourcing. So it is basically an undue weight situation. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every entry in the list has an audio clip from the 60s series, that makes it trustworthy as the proof is there. You seem to completely misunderstand the purpose of lists on wikipedia, and I agree KCon on the finding episodes, date of airing and context/notes in a table format would be more encyclopedic.. Any Batman fan here can feel free to to do that. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still makes it extensive detail from a primary source (the show itself) even we had the table of the episode and context of the exclamation. WP's purpose is to summarize information, and explaining how Robin's "Holy X" phrases have entered the vernacular is appropriate (and necessary, in fact), but we don't have to be the site that lists them all out. We avoid having enumerated lists that only include details from primary sources with no secondary commentary. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd be happy with a secondary source, with commentary, that listed them all? That would satisfy you? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a secondary source - (not holysmokesbatman.com) that in discussing the importance of the phrase decided it was necessary to list them all out, that would be a reason to think about including the list. As such, the collective list appears to be a fan endevour and not appropriate for us to reproduce being a summary, tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Audio clips are not a reliable source that some person or character actually said something. A skilled voice impersonator could create phoney "George W. Bushisms," for instance. A great many people can mimic a great many celebrities and characters in TV and movies, and have made a living doing so for decades. At least indexing the utterances to the episode would make it possible to confirm it by viewing a few minutes of the episode, rather than starting at season 1 episode 1 and listening for it. Edison (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, the clips are not faked, so your general argument is redundant in this context... I agree though that if a reliable source containing the context of the quotes and what episode they were can be found then that would be far better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone sincerely doubts these clips [1] are genuine. It'd not be a BLP issue, they not slandering any real person at all, so each one doesn't need to be referenced individually. Dream Focus 10:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we typically address individual entries in a table just so the readers can check the veracity for themselves? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they are fake, and I don't have to prove they are fake to object to this compilation of clips as a reliable source.At this point, the list is plausible but unverified. Folks are saying that the clips "are real" so that makes the site a reliable source and "verifies" the clips. To make verification feasible, the episode for each clip should be noted. I'm saying you and i couldn't tell the difference if some or all of them were done by a skilled impressionist. The site is anonymous, and does not qualify as a RS. Rich Little, Frank Gorshin and many members of the category "American impressionists (entertainers)" made a good living doing very credible impressions or impersonations of the voices of celebrities. Edison (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this is a basis of my point for a merge: the full list of every "Holy X" statement that Robin made is along the lines of what we would call original research, since every mention requires a good amount of effort to review and the like. If it is original research, then we as Wikipedia editors can't do it, and expect it to fall onto a reliable source to do it, but there's no indication that holysmokesbatman.com is a reliable source. The fact that no one else has bothered to document the whole list shows how trivial that knowing every "Holy X" variation is. We need to discuss the factor that Robin's utterances have made it into pop culture, but at a high, summary level that doesn't require us going away from reliable sources. Thus a merge is better supported here rather than keeping the list. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you have just described ("good amount of effort to review") has anything to do with original research. You're better off sticking to your other arguments. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If one of the utterances in the article and at the website were "Holy fuck!" we would only know it was a hoax by virtue of the fact that the network would never have broadcast such an utterance. Yet any number of voice actors could have recorded such an utterance and sounded like the Robin actor. Or the Robin actor could have recorded it not for broadcast, as humor. That shows the folly of assuming that recordings purporting to be the Robin character on some person's personal website must be accepted as a self-verifying implicitly reliable source. No editorial board is identified, and nothing on the site is signed by its author. Not RS. But at the same time all of the utterances are plausible and akin to remembered Robinisms. Edison (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. In fact, the whole thing could have been secretly manufactured by the media to discredit all right-thinking and clean-living American bats. Ah, "reliable Robinisms" - I remember them!! ("List of exclamations, my arse!" - Robin Tomlinson) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
It's very borderline OR. I do not contend that one could create this list by running through every episode of the show and identifying each utterance and adding episode # and approximate timestamp when it occurs. But unlike the summation of an episode for a plot summary which is built on broad unequivocal terms, you're looking at something very detailed requiring review of every single line of dialog. It is the type of data collection that we would normally expect to have been published before. Yes, it's not that much synthesis or the like, but it is a novel cataloging, hence it is a borderline aspect. But the fact that only one source, and one that doesn't meet WP:RS guides, has gone to the trouble of cataloging does beg the question of that source's reliability (I personally have no reason to doubt, but this is why we consider what are RSes), and the necessity for a tertiary work to fully include it. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I've seen articles on films with memorable quotes given. Not "timestamped" and in many cases, not supported by secondary source. The quote is simply regarded as notable, memorable and in the public domain. So is this a question of scale? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Memorable quotes are usually ones recognized by reliable third-party critics - and if people are inserting quotes in the prose without stating their importance, that's not good as that is OR to say that quote is important. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't propose deletion as it acknowledges the appropriateness of the topic and just wants it covered more concisely in the main article. That's not a deletion issue and our editing policy applies. And the claims above that this is OR because there's no reliable source are easily refuted as the The Official Batman Batbook contains a complete list of "Every Holy Word uttered by Robin". Holy hypotheses! Warden (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What an excellent source. Many thanks. Surprising that so many of us can forget all about ancient relics sometimes. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming in good faith that it is "official" (eg licensed/blessed by the content owners), the list should be immediately re-sourced and checked against that book, and to that end that would satisfy that there was a RS that cataloged the sayings better than a random fansite. Though, hmm, as I'm typing this, I have to wonder a bit if there's a copyvio potential problem here (regardless of whether the list came from the book or mashed together from individual sources). I might be overthinking this, though, since while the sayings are creative, it is a factual list of what those sayings were, which makes it uncopyrigthable. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think they count as facts, don't they? The audio clips themselves might well be under copyright, provided they were not not very good voice-actor fakes, of course (yet how would one tell?). But not a verbatim transcribed list of their content, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why I think I'm overthinking it. The baseline case we do use is that we can't include the full text of a Time 100 list because there is creativity in creating that list, and thus the list itself is copyrightable. While the shows and the associate dialog is copyrightable, the fact that Robin said "Holy X" in this and that episode is factual, and thus the list compilation should be non-copyrightable (there's no creativity in that). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • This book is in no way reliable. Read AuthorHouse — it's a self-publisher. You can publish anything you want with them, as long as you can pay for it; they're basically a printing company who will help you work out the technical side of making a book. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd argue that this is the kind of publishing best suited to the niche fan-based market. You're suggesting that, because it's not been published by a main-stream publishing house, it's therefore bound to be "unreliable". But as far as I can see, a fan-based publication, containing these sort of arcane facts, is likely to be just as reliable as any from an established publisher, is not moreso. Joel Eisner's book (at a second revised edition) is already used as a undisputed source in Batman (TV series). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, that's what I'm saying, because anyone can claim to be an expert with a self-publisher. Please read WP:SPS — this is precisely the situation for which that section exists. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's one of the few Wikipedia policies I have read, thanks. And anyone can claim to have watched all the episodes of Batman and noted down all of Robin's exclamations - not sure one needs to be "an expert" for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - so, is the consensus here to keep the list of expressions in the article or not? Or has consensus on that question not yet been reached? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikpedia is not a list, this is definetly an indiscriminate list that's not in anyway notable. Delete per policy  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there is more to this article than just a list, despite the existing title. Perhaps a re-title is required? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is policy that Wikipedia contains lists: "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information." This particular case seems to satisfy WP:LISTN. So User:KoshVorlon's claim that "Wikpedia is not a list" seems blatantly false. Warden (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Holy Keep, Batman - meets WP:GNG, holysmokesbatman.com might not be reliable, but other sources which mention several of these are. A merge/redirect is not appropriate, because the expressions appear in several, such as Batman (TV series), Batman (1966 film) and Batman Forever (albeit in the latter as a cheesy joke), so the only really appropriate target would be the general-purpose Batman article, which is big enough anyway to treat this as a legitimate content fork. This is a job for cleanup, which AfD is not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PostPdf - You may want to strike the trolling bit, since it's not true, and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Comment on the content, not the contributor Anyhow, I do realize list can be kept per Not Dir within articles if certain conditions are met. It's not met here, in fact, this isn't an article, but rather a definition of WP:NOT DIR #1:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).

That said, if you really want it kept, feel free to change the policy, otherwise, there's only one way this could possibly close, and that's per the policy WP:NOTDIR  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your deletion review request. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it's helpful to delete large sections of an article that's still being discussed for AfD. Maybe gross violations of BLP would have to be dealt with swiftly. But not here. But you didn't answer my question. And why do you think this list of quotes is "loosely associated"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holy enduring cultural remnants of ephemeral TV shows first aired almost half a century ago, Batman, people are still using this as a snowclone. One does not simply delete a meme that preexisted The Selfish Gene by ten years into Mordor, etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many above. Also, once again, would people please stop trying to redefine the word "indiscriminate" to mean "trivia". An indiscriminate list would be something like: green, Jupiter, the number 5, and Chicago. - jc37 21:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current title is nowhere close to specific enough. I would expect this title to be a list of things like "tweet", "cheerily carol", and fluting and warbling. If we keep it, a title such as "List of exclamations by Robin (comics)" would be substatially better. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Basis for deletion not established. Does appear to be properly sourced, and is at least somewhat notable. The nomination appears to be reflect antagonism between two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 17 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_exclamations_by_Robin&oldid=1138009796"