- 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 no consensus but was leaning towards keep. —Doug Bell talk 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Spartacus! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete - this is an unreferenced indiscriminate collection, not of times when the phrase "I'm Spartacus" was used outside the film, but of times when something happened in another movie or TV show that kind of sounded like the "I'm Spartacus" scene. Absent confirmed sources that the writers of the various listed scenes intended to reference the film, this list violates WP:OR. Otto4711 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research. ffm yes? 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Any actual usage can simply be listed under Spartacus (film). Endaso 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The text was created by offloading the collection from Spartacus (film). This is rather common way to make the main articles clean (see Category:In popular culture). While quality of this type of texts is nothing spectacular they serve rather well in their "wastebasket" role. No better working solution exists for current Wikipedia, unformtunately, so I recommend keeping it to avoid worse. Pavel Vozenilek 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If deleted please do not copy anything back to the main article. It would make maintenance of the article harder than it needs to be. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The solution would be to recognize that collections of every mention of a particular catchphrase, character, book, TV show, film, etc. in another film, book, TV show or whatever (whether contained within an article on a topic or in a separate article) are not encyclopedic and shouldn't be created or maintained. Otto4711 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be the ideal. In practice it is impossible to stop people adding this kind of trivia. Leaf pages "... in popular culture" are able to keep this away from the main text. Pavel Vozenilek 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, "people are gonna do it anyway" strikes me as a really poor reason to want to keep this article. If you object to this article then !vote to delete it. If the stuff gets added to the article, remove it. Otto4711 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep another case of Otto nominating stuff, rather than putting any effort in to try to improve it. Lugnuts 09:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Certainly encyclopedic Dave 12:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above. This is a widely recognised phrase/quote and with all the references provided it certainly "asserts its notability"--Boris Allen 13:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What references are you referring to? The article does not contain even one source. Otto4711 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a whole section on "Uses in Popular Culture", I was referring to these as "references"--Boris Allen 10:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But those "references" are unreferenced, which is in large measure the point of the nomination. 13 of the 23 items listed are not instances of the phrase "I'm Spartacus" or a reasonable facsimile (i.e. "I'm Sportacus") and there is no sourcing that the examples that do not repeat the phrase were intended as parodies or references to the original. Otto4711 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or conversely, 10 do. Dave 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but they were obviously intended as parodies/references in that way--Boris Allen 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obviously" according to who? I've seen "In and Out" and "To Wong Foo" several times and it's never occurred to me that the scenes in question were intended as parodies or pastiches or references to "I'm Spartacus." Including them on the list constitutes original research unless there is a source that states the writers of those scenes intended to reference Spartacus. The examples that do specifically use the word "Spartacus" or something close to it are also unsourced. But even if there were documented evidence for each of these items that confirmed they were all 100% intended to reference "I'm Spartacus", the list is still an indiscriminate list of every usage of a two-word phrase from one work in another work. It is unencyclopedic trivia. Otto4711 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But those "references" are unreferenced, which is in large measure the point of the nomination. 13 of the 23 items listed are not instances of the phrase "I'm Spartacus" or a reasonable facsimile (i.e. "I'm Sportacus") and there is no sourcing that the examples that do not repeat the phrase were intended as parodies or references to the original. Otto4711 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at very least Merge back into Spartacus.Neddyseagoon - talk 17:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per reasons given by Pavel Vozenilek. --Kevin Murray 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Otto4711. Eluchil404 08:09, 14 February 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.