Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damned Dirty Ape

Add links
Source: 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 redirect to Planet of the Apes (1968 film)#Plot. Consensus for redirect - does not require separate article for this movie quote. The quote is more easily understood from the context of the film itself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damned Dirty Ape

Damned Dirty Ape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a whole separate and unsourced article on this quote alone, rather than just a subsection in Planet of the Apes (1968 film)? Delete? Redirect? Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could say "Tomorrow is another day" from Gone With the Wind and "No wire hangers ever" from Mommie Dearest are arguably equally as notable probably used in other media just as frequently this line but neither line has a separate article. The "Damned Dirty Ape" line itself is not notable enough for a completely separate article outside the original film filled with nothing but trivial references to the utterance of the line within other media. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count 11 each in IMDb; just under 58%. That's not including the more obscure references to damn dirty apes in film and television or any of the references in print. Movie quotes are permitted to have articles on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but it appears your estimate of notability is rather subjective.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section would be preferable to an article called "Planet of the Apes in popular culture". Mandsford (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest someone close this AfD so people can edit normally or continue the discussion at Talk:Planet of the Apes (1968 film).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hate to see it closed just yet. Although the trend so far is for a redirect, it's not exactly a snowball. There may be other editors who feel that the article should be kept, or who feel that it should be deleted. It's only fair that the article's supporters be given an opportunity to be heard. Mandsford (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand Bearcat and the others who voted Redirect to#Plot, Redirect or Delete meant to discard the content of the article. I would have thought deletion is no longer on the table, here, because I subsequently addressed the issues behind this AfD: the lack of sourcing and orphan–issue, (and even added more material, none of which was difficult). Thank you Clarityfiend, for working with me to improve to improve the article. "Old men" like me appreciate all the help we can get.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article. I found two journal articles that refer briefly to the line (I've added details of these to the Talk page if anyone wants to do anything with them - I guess one could draw from them the info that this is the first line he says to the apes and that it's significant in the development of the relationship between the species) but it doesn't seem to me that there's enough for an article, no matter how long the list of throwaway parodies gets. Include a redirect, of course, for both "Damned Dirty Ape" and "Damn Dirty Ape". --Zeborah (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article well sourced and no longer orphaned. The number of references in other films shows this is one of film's insider references. Film buffs will appreciate this article. Short articles are possible. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The line is described by numerous sources such as Guide to American cinema as a memorable or famous line and so the topic is notable. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Good work is being done finding scholarly accounts of the topic on the article's talk page and so we should follow our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the film. The mistake that Colonel Warden makes is equating mentions with notability. We gain nothing by spreading content out across articles just because there's some mention of them. Readers gain much more by having content in one place, as long as the size or subject matter of the content doesn't detract from the article. Spreading these out makes no sense when the indications of separate notability are this trivial, it just invites contradictions, unnecessary extra edits, watching, maintenance, and vandalism. I would say [and others have] the same for "Say hello to my little friend". Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mistake you make is to suppose that there is a single redirect target. This phrase is discussed by the sources in multiple contexts - the original movie; the remake; Charlton Heston; the AFI's list; discussion of the relations between apes and man; etc. In such cases, it makes sense to have an article which brings all these together. This is normal encyclopaedic practise and our web structure makes this especially sensible for us. Massive, wall-of-text articles are quite unsuitable for the smartphones which are now commonly used to access Wikipedia and so we should be deliberately structuring our content around this form factor. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They can be added as well, if they haven't already been. Wikipedia is not paper, it never running out of space. Dream Focus 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is not whether there is space for the information. The debate relates to whether or not this film quote is notable enough to warrant an article separate from the 1968 film. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also my point was that its come 66th, not that there would have to be 65 other pages. I was not aware that comming 66th in anything was notable. If it had been in say the top three (or if it couold be estavblished that this changed cinema) this might be different.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (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/Damned_Dirty_Ape&oldid=1148047142"