410:. 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
325:. 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
560:
says that films etc are primary sources, and that facts (but not interpretations) from primary sources can be stated in
Knowledge. Yes, you could verify it by watching. I suppose Knowledge might add a requirement for references to state the h:mm:ss, similar to quoting page numbers in books, but even
616:
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
646:
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.
196:(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
629:
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
455:
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
505:
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
223:- 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
402:. 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
758:
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.
532:; 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!
134:- 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.
547:: 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.
87:
82:
91:
561:
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
Knowledge policy. -
74:
277:
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
831:
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
788:
114:
379:
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.
685:
528:? 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
556:
You even said books, my friend! As for films: it is not a requirement of
Knowledge policies to quote films only from secondary sources e.g. film reviews.
506:
scholarly journal mentions their direct impact in popular culture additional indicates that any claims about original research or erroneous. Best, --
282:
236:
OK, noted. At the time there were various similar pages within
Knowledge so it seemed to be acceptable & encyclopedic to create it. Let it go.
858:
815:
798:
778:
766:
748:
728:
708:
695:
671:
651:
641:
621:
606:
590:
568:
551:
539:
514:
492:
463:
450:
422:
394:
363:
336:
317:
292:
272:
243:
231:
207:
188:
164:
152:
138:
125:
56:
716:
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
265:
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
344:
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.
508:
416:
78:
480:. References to movies, TV series, books, video games, etc., require that the viewer watch or play them, which is a violation of
372:
411:
70:
62:
17:
403:
407:
52:
article, which is an unsourced list without sufficient context, and which overwhelming consensus clearly seeks to discard.
726:
160:
non-sourced, a grab-bag for every trivial mention. Delete this before God destroys 40 days and nights of rain again.
48:. One commenter contributed a few scholarly references to this discussion. Those might justify an article, but not
855:
763:
745:
603:
565:
536:
460:
333:
289:
240:
204:
873:
36:
872:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
488:. And why would we want a subpage of a Talk page for an article which fails so many policies and guidelines?
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
484:, without reliable sources to prove that the things actually exist as the article says they exist, it fails
852:
760:
742:
600:
562:
533:
457:
330:
286:
237:
201:
502:
775:
380:
314:
269:
721:
808:
548:
489:
447:
278:
218:
197:
812:
724:
387:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
456:
deletions, but I do get fed up of lazy, empty assertions that articles fail this or that. -
824:
443:
738:
648:
618:
557:
529:
376:
345:
311:
307:
303:
228:
149:
135:
835:. Other allegations against the article are unsupported or disproved above, including
828:
717:
667:
637:
185:
122:
268:- this is nothing but an obvious (yet oh so clever, I must give you that) fanpage.--
844:
836:
596:
525:
481:
477:
439:
431:
326:
161:
807:
i think that we should keep this article because it shows how well known that the
524:: References to books requires the reader to read them, so is that a violation of
108:
630:
material encyclopedic--it is the relationship of one important thing to another.
848:
840:
795:
485:
435:
391:
705:
587:
53:
660:
again, it depends on whether notable artists turn out to have used the work.
741:. Please read the above, and present arguments rather than mere assertions.
262:
266:
692:
662:
632:
173:
595:
It is not original research in the sense banned by
Knowledge policy
386:
for the retention of this sort of material that needs editing, as
430:, do not make a subpage of the Talk page, that's bizarre. Fails
866:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
258:
586:
as most of it is original research, plus the rest is trivia
285:. Oh OK, you got me, I had in mind to add it eventually. -
217:
the point of creating the article was to stop the article
501:
Please review the articles in question fully, as there
104:
100:
96:
737:
unsourced - it quotes primary sources as permitted by
756:
If deleting, permit re-creation as a proper article.
121:Yet another cluttered, trivial and unsourced list.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
876:). No further edits should be made to this page.
617:the three marching Revolutionary War soldiers.
8:
823:(by creator): The article contains trivia.
476:There are no sources, so it clearly fails
306:but it also doesn't meet the criteria for
789:list of Popular culture-related deletions
71:The three wise monkeys in popular culture
63:The three wise monkeys in popular culture
787:: This debate has been included in the
684:: This debate has been included in the
614:Hear no evil, see no evil, keep no evil
774:not a notable pop culture phenomenon.
7:
302:This clearly is not noteable as per
200:being overwhelmed by these items. -
813:legaiamaster will warp your reality
24:
227:overwhelm the original article.
221:being overwhelmed by these items
686:list of Japan-related deletions
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
859:21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
816:14:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
799:00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
672:03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
412:User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy
57:16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
779:18:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
767:11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
749:11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
729:21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
709:10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
696:10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
652:22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
642:23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
622:22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
607:11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
591:22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
569:17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
552:16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
540:09:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
515:00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
493:21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
464:21:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
451:18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
423:14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
395:13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
364:13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
337:12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
318:11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
293:09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
273:07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
244:12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
232:07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
208:07:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
189:05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
165:05:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
153:05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
139:05:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
126:04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
510:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
418:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
545:Equally astonished re-reply
893:
704:. Trivia, unencyclopedic.
323:Request for clarification
869:Please do not modify it.
373:subpage of the talk page
32:Please do not modify it.
833:cluttered and unsourced
809:three wise monkeys
279:Three wise monkeys
219:Three wise monkeys
198:Three wise monkeys
801:
792:
698:
689:
257:The page has one
884:
871:
793:
783:
690:
680:
522:Astonished reply
513:
511:
421:
419:
414:. Sincerely, --
361:
358:
355:
352:
182:
179:
176:
112:
94:
34:
892:
891:
887:
886:
885:
883:
882:
881:
880:
874:deletion review
867:
796:John Vandenberg
530:primary sources
509:
507:
417:
415:
392:Smerdis of Tlön
359:
356:
353:
350:
261:image on it of
180:
177:
174:
172:per nominator.
148:- non notable.
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
890:
888:
879:
878:
862:
861:
818:
802:
781:
776:Carlossuarez46
769:
753:
752:
751:
711:
699:
677:
676:
675:
674:
655:
654:
644:
624:
611:
610:
609:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
519:
518:
517:
496:
495:
469:
468:
467:
466:
425:
397:
390:points out. -
377:Andrew Lenahan
366:
346:Andrew Lenahan
339:
320:
297:
296:
295:
283:See no evil...
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
211:
210:
191:
167:
155:
142:
141:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
889:
877:
875:
870:
864:
863:
860:
857:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
819:
817:
814:
810:
806:
803:
800:
797:
790:
786:
782:
780:
777:
773:
770:
768:
765:
762:
757:
754:
750:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
727:
725:
723:
719:
715:
712:
710:
707:
703:
700:
697:
694:
687:
683:
679:
678:
673:
669:
665:
664:
659:
658:
657:
656:
653:
650:
645:
643:
639:
635:
634:
628:
625:
623:
620:
615:
612:
608:
605:
602:
599:. See above.
598:
594:
593:
592:
589:
585:
582:
581:
570:
567:
564:
559:
555:
554:
553:
550:
549:Corvus cornix
546:
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
516:
512:
504:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
491:
490:Corvus cornix
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
465:
462:
459:
454:
453:
452:
449:
448:Corvus cornix
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
424:
420:
413:
409:
405:
401:
398:
396:
393:
389:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
365:
362:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
332:
328:
324:
321:
319:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:Speedy Delete
298:
294:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
271:
267:
264:
260:
256:
255:Speedy delete
253:
252:
245:
242:
239:
235:
234:
233:
230:
226:
222:
220:
215:
214:
213:
212:
209:
206:
203:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
183:
171:
168:
166:
163:
159:
156:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
868:
865:
832:
820:
804:
784:
771:
755:
734:
713:
701:
681:
661:
631:
626:
613:
583:
544:
521:
427:
399:
383:
368:
349:
341:
322:
299:
254:
224:
216:
193:
169:
157:
145:
131:
120:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
388:WP:SUBPAGE
381:Talk pages
315:Talk To Me
853:Fayenatic
825:WP:TRIVIA
761:Fayenatic
743:Fayenatic
649:Mandsford
619:Mandsford
601:Fayenatic
563:Fayenatic
534:Fayenatic
458:Fayenatic
444:WP:TRIVIA
331:Fayenatic
312:Pupster21
287:Fayenatic
263:Faye Wong
238:Fayenatic
229:Gatoclass
202:Fayenatic
150:Gatoclass
136:Spawn Man
270:Old Hoss
123:RobJ1981
115:View log
821:SUMMARY
739:WP:PSTS
722:Jaranda
558:WP:PSTS
308:WP:LIST
304:WP:NOTE
225:doesn't
162:MarkBul
88:protect
83:history
856:(talk)
829:WP:NOT
772:Delete
764:(talk)
746:(talk)
733:It is
718:WP:NOT
714:Delete
702:Delete
604:(talk)
584:Delete
566:(talk)
537:(talk)
461:(talk)
428:Delete
375:. As
342:Delete
334:(talk)
290:(talk)
241:(talk)
205:(talk)
170:Delete
158:Delete
146:Delete
132:Delete
92:delete
46:Delete
845:WP:RS
837:WP:OR
706:Keb25
627:Keeep
597:WP:OR
588:Corpx
526:WP:OR
482:WP:OR
478:WP:RS
440:WP:RS
432:WP:OR
371:to a
327:WP:OR
281:with
109:views
101:watch
97:links
54:Xoloz
16:<
849:WP:V
847:and
841:WP:N
811:are
805:keep
785:Note
682:Note
668:talk
638:talk
486:WP:V
442:and
436:WP:V
408:this
406:and
404:this
400:Keep
369:Move
310:. --
194:Keep
186:Talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
50:this
851:.
827:or
794:--
791:.
735:not
693:Fg2
691:--
688:.
663:DGG
633:DGG
446:.
384:are
357:bli
329:?
259:WTF
113:– (
843:,
839:,
720:.
670:)
640:)
503:is
438:,
434:,
360:nd
354:ar
351:St
348:-
184:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
666:(
636:(
181:P
178:I
175:J
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.