Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danger, Will Robinson


 * 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 or merge You can all hash it out on the talkpage. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Danger, Will Robinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This pseudo-article is nothing but a giant trivia section, which has somehow survived for over a decade, and other than one (minor) point, the entire thing is completely unsourced. This is exactly what Wikiquote is supposed to be for; the (minimal) salvageable content would be of far more use to the reader as a sentence at Robot B-9. &#8209; iridescent 17:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Danger, Wikipedia, Danger It's easy enough to find sources as the catchphrase appears in thousands of books, including the following encyclopedia: Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia; The Encyclopedia of Sixties Cool; An Encyclopedia of Robots from TV, Film, Literature, Comics, Toys, and More; A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century; The Lost in Space Encyclopedia.  The worst case would be merger into another page such as Robot B-9.  Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, I'm not seeing any case for deletion here. Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This got me wondering who the guy was who would slap his mouth: "fun *pop* fun *pop* fun *pop*". It turns out that we have this covered too – see Zumdish.  Kudos to the editor who did that. Andrew D. (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to add in enough redirects so you would always be able to find the mouth popping guy, because you will forget his name in 24 hours or less. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's more than just an article about B-9's catchphrase, as the phrase was uttered once on the show but has had much larger pop culture ramifications, so I don't think it needs a merge. Plus, as Andrew D. points out, there are plenty of sources out there that can be used as references, as the article is light on citation. Fuzchia (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Considering that the article is about a catchphrase and rest of it is trivia about usage, I guess WP:NAD applies here. Ceosad (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand WP:NAD does not apply, it is not a defined word, it is a phrase with the provenance explained and examples of the usage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Phrases are included in the policy, but I guess WP:WORDISSUBJECT is overly vague on these cases. Phrase usage guides are explicitly banned in WP:NAD, and much of the article is all about examples. Ceosad (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Phrase usage guides are explicitly banned". The guide, WP:NAD, gives No worries as an example of what a phrase article should look like and it contains a usage section, so what is going on there? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant the section about Wikipedia is not a usage guide in WP:NAD, and the WP:WORDISSUBJECT states that such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. The article itself says the following: "Despite the popularity of the phrase, it was said only once on the show." The article would need to be vastly expanded on the cultural significance of the phrase to avoid WP:NAD. For instance about that hacker culture thing mentioned in the article. I do not think we could find enough sources to say that this phrase has cultural notability etc. No worries has good sections on Cultural origins and Influence, and multiple independent sources, unlike Danger, Will Robinson. Ceosad (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Much distressed arm waving between weak keep and merge and redirect to List of catchphrases ( which has only British examples for TV: Danger! Danger! Now it has some Yankee ones). Variety does call it an "iconic catchphrase". Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After much spinning around and falling down, and being completely confused by WP:NAD (I really do fail to comprehend WP:WORDISSUBJECT) - Keep VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The 852 Google news search results proves its still a common expression used today for a large variety of reasons.   D r e a m Focus  01:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm all against fancruft and useless info. But as other editors have pointed out, this phrase has widespread use and some staying power. And I really liked the above discussion regarding NAD, and can see both sides. But all things considered, I !vote keep.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge (or it least, don't delete). There's some material out there, although I'm having a hard time finding it reaches signficant coverage of the phrase, one paragraph in an apparently self-published book notwithstanding. Still, surely a merge or partial merge to Robot B-9 would be of more preferable outright deletion, per WP:ATD, and I don't see an argument against retention via merge. Moreover, the cultural impact of the phrase *is* part of the cultural impact of the show, I'm mystified as to why combined coverage would be seen as a negative here--for our readers, I would expect it to be a benefit, not a drawback. --joe deckertalk 07:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article needs sources, sure, but the phrase has entered popular culture far beyond its original use, as can be easily seen with a news search. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lost in Space or elsewhere. The huge trivia section is worthless cruft, and the rest would with some compression fit into another article.  Sandstein   19:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lost in Space. It's relevant and notable in terms of the show's enduring legacy, not on its own. The article at present doesn't pass WP:WORDISSUBJECT because none of the sources extend to significant coverage of the term besides its use in other media, which isn't enough to sustain notability for the phrase itself with an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.