Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 54:
::*I'll take that as admission that you haven't investigated whether these sketches are notable. Also, I think it's [[Pot calling the kettle black|funny]] when you accuse me of wikilawyering when you've been doing a great deal of wikilawyering above. Just look at the number of times you've linked in a wikipedia policy link above and I also believe you are trying to get us to abide by the letter of [[WP:N]] while violating it's spirit. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:::*You're free to take it as an admission of anything you'd like, but sadly, your interpretation has absolutely no basis in reality. And gee, excuse me for including links to the policies I cite. Although I think you'll find that it's pretty standard practice, when citing a policy one believes supports one's position, to include a link to it in one's argument as a courtesy to those who might want to review the policy. It is not within the spirit of [[WP:N]] to retain material that is not notable; indeed, the spirit of [[WP:N]] is that subjects should be notable. I do not understand how [[WP:N]] can be read either in letter or in spirit to mean that articles on subjects that are not notable should be retained. So I'll ask again, can you offer any reliable sources that establish the independent notability of any of these subjects? [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as the tide against these articles may be turning per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Philosophers%27_Football_Match this] discussion. Sincerely, --<
**The major difference between that discussion and this one is that a source (however useful it may have been) was provided. To use the legal term, I don't think the precedent is "on all fours" with this AfD. [[User:BigHaz|BigHaz]] - [[User_talk:BigHaz|Schreit mich an]] 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', I have added a script and video of [[Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses]] similar to how it is done for [[The Philosophers' Football Match]] which was a keep and I have also added the reference I mentioned above which "Philophers'" didn't have, so I believe this article should also be a keep. Other than this particular edit, I am not an author of these articles but as I mentioned, I believe that time is warranted to give the author(s) a chance to beef up the articles similar to how I've beefed up Anne Elk. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:*Congratulations, you have successfully established that the sketch exists. However, ''existence'' does not equal ''notability''. You have failed to demonstrate that this sketch is in any way independently notable. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep all''' or at least renominate separately. Monty Python is very famous and thus all of its sketches should be at least mentioned. [[User:JIP|<
**There's a considerable difference between "mentioned" and "have articles written about them", though. [[User:BigHaz|BigHaz]] - [[User_talk:BigHaz|Schreit mich an]] 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''List individually''' and (those who do it or are contemplating doing so), please refrain from responding to every comment or opinion that disagrees with yours. It's bad form, intimidating to some, and not good evidence of your individual brilliance. Better use of that brilliance would be to improve the articles in question, seek out whatever you think is missing and add it, etc. [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
| |||