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. As a first approximation, the head count of bolded words yields no consensus. Looking more closely, though, one notices that almost all of the majority of "delete" opinions include more or less cogent reasons why the article should be deleted, including references to applicable policies and guidelines. On the other hand, among the minority of "keep" opinions, only DGG and Nick Penguin have offered an actual rationale why the article should be kept. Sandstein 06:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: One might add the opinion of Le Grand Roi to the list of reasoned "keep"s, but this does not change the outcome. Sandstein 06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture[edit]

Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a "pop culture" section culled from the Veni, Vidi, Vici page. I have rewritten the section as prose instead of a list and moved the list to a separate page, but I do not feel comfortable singlehandedly deleting this content without some discussion. Slashme 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Veni, vidi, vici already covers the historical and cultural context along with a couple of examples (that need sourcing) and a couple of variants. That is sufficient to cover the material without the boundless laundry list. Otto4711 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poor quality of the main article is not an excuse for keeping this one. Improve the main article, which is what most people will see and find, instead of working on a splinter article that is largely worthless. Otto4711 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being comprehensive is not always an advantage. In the case of an enumeration of the wives of Henry VIII, it's absolutely necessary to be comprehensive, as there is a fixed number, and each is important in her own right. In this case, however, we will never be comprehensive, and if we were, it would be trivial and sad, and would be of no forseeable use to anyone. And as for the main article not containing references, that's a completely separate matter. --Slashme 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all the non-frivolous content is already in Veni, vidi, vici, so would that make your vote "delete"? --Slashme 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Dr. Fluffy's objection was based on a personal dislike. Listcruft is by definition non-notable, which is a perfectly proper reason for deletion.--Slashme 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's been posting that same essay in several AFD's, and usually it doesn't even apply to what people said. In my view, it's just a disruptive way for him to start problems with people that don't agree with him. RobJ1981 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the article started out as a relatively short indiscriminate list and you think it's better now that it's a much larger indiscriminate list?! Otto4711 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing stated by WP:IINFO can be meaningfully applied to this article. You cannot invoke it arbitrarily to delete any article youdon'tlike.--Father Goose 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, you haven't made the mistake of thinking that the list there is exhaustive, have you? Even if it were exhaustive and this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, this is still a directory of loosely associated topics since the items on the list are not associated with each other merely by happening to include the same Latin phrase. Otto4711 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not exhaustive. Are you suggesting that that's a reason why it should be deleted? (Good god.) It's also neither a directory nor a "loosely associated topic" -- the topic is the cultural prominence of the phrase "Veni, vidi, vici". It's that very prominence that is the reason why we have an article on Veni, vidi, vici in the first place; not every Latin phrase is notable, but this one sure is.--Father Goose 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the phrase is notable. That does not make every mention of the phrase notable or worthy of mention. Otto4711 12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a reasonably representative set of examples that illustrate the phrase's use in popular culture. First you argue that the list is not exhaustive, then you argue that it is overlong. You're making up rules as you go along here.--Father Goose 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not argue that the list in the article was not exhaustive. I argued that the list of items located at WP:NOT#IINFO is not exhaustive. You have failed to interpret my comments correctly. The point still stands that even if the list isn't indiscriminate, it is still an association of loosely associated items. There is no need for a an entire separate article if the purpose is to illustrate usage of the phrase. Further, thia list will continue to grow with the addition of more and more references as editors spot them, rendering the list even more indiscriminate and its constituent items still unassociated. Otto4711 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I misunderstood your comment. Regardless, I see people trying to use "indiscriminate" or "loosely associated" to delete any list on Wikipedia that was not originally compiled outside of Wikipedia. This is foolhardy; all sorts of lists can be a useful supplement to our prose-based coverage of notable subjects.--Father Goose 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that the use of three words of Latin is a "theme" is nonsensical. The list clearly contains mentions of the phrase from material that does not have its own Wikipedia article so that claim is flase on its face. And yes, the fact that different writers use the phrase, or an English translation of the phrase, or a different phrase that is similar to but not the phrase but in the WP:OR and WP:POV opinion of the editor who spots it is close enough for jazz, is indeed trivia. Otto4711 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling something "trivia" is not a basis for deletion. Several of the variations are explicitly described by cited reliable secondary sources as variations of the original phrase, and many of the unadulterated uses of the phrase are commented upon by cited secondary sources as well. Most of the entries furthermore do have Wikipedia articles -- did you notice the dozens of blue links? In fact, based on all the researching I've done by now, "veni, vidi, vici" may very well be the most widely used Latin phrase in popular culture. That specific claim is OR, but suffice it to say the phrase has permeated the culture deeply.--Father Goose 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could make a list full of blue links of all sorts of things that include whatever random phrase you can think of. The point still stands, the simple use of a particular phrase in a work of fiction does not create an association between that piece of fiction and every other piece of fiction that uses the same phrase. No one, in considering for example Love's Labor's Lost, is going to think "oh yes, Love's Labor's Lost, it reminds me of the Batman graphic novel Dark Victory because they both include some reference to the same Latin phrase!" It's ludicrous to claim that the things on this list have any relationship to each other. Otto4711 12:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments grow increasingly strange. Entries on lists rarely relate directly to each other; one does not look at list of mountains and exclaim, "K2, that reminds me of Kilimanjaro!"--Father Goose 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be willing to bet cash money that if I were to ask a hundred people to identify the commonality between K2 and Kilimanjaro, 95 or more would say they are both mountains. On the other hand, were I to ask those same hundred people to identify the commonality between, say, the book The Cry of the Icemark and the Broadway musical Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, not one of them would say "they both include the words 'veni, vidi, vici'." And I think you'll find that the better lists do contain items that have some relation to each other. Lists of characters from the same book, for example, or lists of hospitals in a particular country. Bad lists, however, contain dozens or hundreds of things that have nothing to do with each other beyond the presence of the same three words. Like this one. Otto4711 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are hospitals in the same country related to each other?--Father Goose 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, they're all hospitals, and they're all in the same country. Otto4711 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of treatment that a topic can be given on Wikisource, or in a book. An encyclopedia must summarize information, not just give the raw data. A long list of references to the sentence "Veni, Vidi, Vici" is supporting data for its notability, not encyclopedic material. Look at the discussion on Veni, vidi, vici#Cultural references. You will see that enough instances are quoted to give the reader a clear idea of the cultural significance of the sentence, without recourse to a huge list of trivial items. --Slashme 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hilariously enough, I clicked that link when I woke up this morning, only to find that the section you pointed to has since been removed (and the VVV article is now extremely bare, with only one section). Laf. Anyways, I do see your point, and I certainly do not believe the IPC article should attempt to collect every instance, however I think the importance of the phrase is more properly illuminated on Wikipedia by providing some relevant and significant examples. That said, I still believe the VVV in IPC article could use some trimming to remove some of the less notable instances, but I don't think containing these instances is enough to justify some deleting, only to justify some editing. --Nick Penguin 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. It should never have been deleted - I specifically trimmed it down to a sensible size. And moving content to an article that's up for deletion is a bit risky, IMHO. --Slashme 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who moved the IPC content to its own article then nominated it for deletion. What you just said is totally incongruous with your actions. Incidentally, the section you restored to the main article remains unsourced, unlike the IPC article. It probably be better to use an excerpt of the IPC article's lead instead.--Father Goose 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to some trimming. When fixing the article, I chose to leave in place any entry that was already on the list that I could verify, rather than try to act as an arbiter.
And to expand on what you said: one shouldn't delete articles because of the possibility that they will attract poor additions. We'd have to close down the entire wiki if that were our standard.--Father Goose 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a question of "attracting poor additions." It's that the whole thing is a bad addition, as is every similar list of "this one time in aa movie this guy said Foo" lists. We're always seeing "keep and prune" in these discussions, but no one ever seems to go ahead and do it, nor does anyone ever that I recall offer any sort of guideline for when a mention of the thing should be on the list and when it shouldn't. That's consistently a problem with these "spot every reference" laundry lists. There's no objective standard for determining what should be on the list and what shouldn't. Otto4711 13:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because in your experience you've observed that "no one ever seems to go ahead and do [some pruning]" doesn't mean no one ever will, or that no one ever has. And if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia does not need to be perfect, and certainly not made perfect overnight. I wish anyone could show me some mysterious "objective standard" with which to measure importance, but since we all know that will likely never happen, I would strongly discourage you from trying to broadly apply your own subjective standard, especially in AfD. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, that was rather my point, there is no possible objective standard as to what mentions of the phrase should be included in a list like this. For every one that you or I think is too trivial to mention there will be at least one editor (the one who added it) who thinks it isn't. Which is why a section in the main article that discusses how the phrase is used in popular culture, along with a relevant and sourced example or two of each of the notable types of usage, is the way that these sorts of things should be handled. And I don't recall ever suggesting that Wikipedia needs to be perfect so that's a bit of a red herring on your part. While Wikipedia can never be perfect, it can be made better and part of what would IMHO make it better would be for people to come to understand that list after list after list of "Somebody said it in a movie, let's run to the computer to add it to an article" references are not encyclopedic. Otto4711 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it sounds like we both want exactly the same thing, a list of relevant and sourced examples. The only difference is that I see a a developing list of relevant and sourced examples while you see an irrelevant laundry list of cultural references. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single time the phrase is used in any medium is not a relevant reference. The material is easily covered in the main article. A sourced prose sentence explaining how it's used for each type of usage, and one or two sourced examples for illustration. A very small number of examples do the job. A list of every usage regardless of how trivial does not. Otto4711 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your first sentence, which is why I believe the article (or at least the content) should be kept and trimmed. If your second sentence was the case, then I don't think there was any need for Slashme to fork the IPC section out and immediately AfD it; this could have easily been handled at the article level. Further more, I think it is notable that a phrase from a language that almost no one even speaks has been manipulated, recreated and reinvented so many times. Thus the content on this page should ultimately be kept, either here or at the main VVV article, because it shows the significant influence the phrase has had in many different shades of Western culture. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"For every one that you or I think is too trivial to mention there will be at least one editor (the one who added it) who thinks it isn't." So what we're looking at is a difference of opinion between you and other editors. The solution to a difference of opinion is not "delete it."
Incidentally, at least one objective standard is whether the entry is verifiable. Because of that standard, these lists don't grow infinitely, regardless of what you claim. They tend to stabilize once the most culturally prominent instances get added. One can apply an additional restricting condition if the list grows to an unmanageable size -- such as your earlier suggestion, blue-linked entries only.
What's notable about veni, vidi, vici as something more than "something Caesar said" is how much the phrase has permeated the popular imagination. If not for that phenomenon -- which this article serves to document -- the phrase would have no encyclopedic significance on its own.--Father Goose 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the distinction you make in the first three sentences is accurate, because a phrase needs to be uttered in order to be notable, and specific utterances demonstrate notability. Again, as I have said before, I completely agree, not every instance is notable. But issues with specific entries can be dealt with at the article level, not through an "all or nothing" AfD debate. I continue to fail to see why all this content needs to be deleted instead of just edited down a little.
Also, and you may not be aware, but the sentence "Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia", or whatever the phrase was, has since been removed from WP:NOT. Please update your worldview accordingly.--NickPenguin(contribs) 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to update anything despite your little snark attack. WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR serve perfectly well just as is. And sorry, but "specific utterances" do not demonstrate notability. If you actually read WP:N, you would see that notability is established by reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. There are no reliable secondary sources that discuss directly and in detail the presence of the phrase in any of the examples offered. I agree that the examples should be dealt with at the article level, and the article in which they should be dealt with is the main article. This pile of shit should never have been split off into its own article. A list of times somene says the phrase is not encyclopedic and the article should be deleted. Put the time and energy into the article on the phrase itself, not this useless compendium of waste. Otto4711 03:20, 5 November 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.
More