Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''train wreck''' - in any event, no consensus to delete them all, and no clear visibility to what the outcome of individual discussions would be based on this discussion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===Several Monty Python sketches===
{{ns:0|F}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accidents Sketch}}</ul></div>
:{{la|Accidents Sketch}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 22#{{anchorencode:Accidents Sketch}}|View log]])</noinclude>
Line 17 ⟶ 24:
*'''Delete and Merge''' into [[List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes]]. Fancruft. Unencyclopedic. We don't need, for instance, a list of all the composers mentioned in the [[Decomposing Composers]] sketch. Summarize each and include in the list. For a model of that, see Series 3, Episode 7 in the list, where a skit is described. I don't think redirecting is worthwhile. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, and by the way, there's no assertion of notability, usually no references and nothing but a plot summary in any of these articles. All against policy. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' (plot summaries) into one article. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
*'''Merge'''. Information is worthwhile, but not as separate articles. [[User:Operating|Operating]] 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' why delete two sheds but keep nudge nudge? Either get rid of every MP sketch article or keep them all. The only other sensible alternative is to only keep "notable" sketches, which would be sketches that have been written about or reviewed independently. But that would be silly. We have a separate article for every Frasier episode, not just the "notable" ones. Likewise, it is fine to have an article for every MP sketch. [[User:Capmango|Capmango]] 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Line 32 ⟶ 39:
:::::::*Please read [[WP:N]]. Notability means that the subject of the article is the substantial subject of reliable sources. A one-line mention in a book of at least 127 pages is not substantially about the sketch. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*The problem is that most of us do online searches as we can't be bothered to go to a library over something like this and it might be difficult to get the rigorous standards that you demand for something that was a skit over 30 years ago online. During it's time, this skit was popular, it occurred before my time but people still talked about it when I was a kid. I know your going to start putting in a whole bunch of wikipedia links like [[WP:OR]] but what can I say. This skit generates almost a thousand hits on google and there are some reliable sources like the one I mentioned above that make reference to it. Right now I don't have time to do a more extensive search at the different hits, perhaps later. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::*I'm sorry, but notability is not some rigorous unattainable standard. And the fact that you keep using words like "popular" indicates that you don't understand what notability is. It is not popularity. It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are fansites and other unreliable sources). It is not about things "referencing" the sketch in passing. It is about having independent reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete all'''. At the time this comment is written, none of the sketches have any sources demonstrating their independent notability beyond the fact that they're all Monty Python routines and therefore hilarious. If there are sources which can be added for any of them, I'll gladly review my opinion. [[User:BigHaz|BigHaz]] - [[User_talk:BigHaz|Schreit mich an]] 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete all''' These are all plot summaries that don't do the show justice. Why should they be on Wikipedia? I'm sure the vast majority of Monty Python sketches are non-notable. [[User:Fee Fi Foe Fum|Fee Fi Foe Fum]] 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Line 37 ⟶ 45:
*'''Keep All''' These are all notable sketches to some degree or another, especially when considered as a whole. On individual basis, i could see deleting one or two of them as non-notable, but as a block, i'm sorry, several are important cultural and historical events that reveal quite a bit about other things in society. It might be interesting to consider the recent actions on another monty python sketch that was not added in here, which is the football sketch which was recently kept. Did these prods happen at the same time? or after. I suspect the same time. Monty Python's work is notable, some of it is more notable than others. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:*It is very easy to state that something has some sort of cultural significance. It is quite another to back up that claim with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. You're admitting here that at least some of this material does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines yet you're arguing to keep it anyway. [[WP:ILIKEIT]] is not a valid argument for keeping. The fact that the football sketch article was (wrongly IMHO) kept has no bearing on whether any of these articles should be kept, because [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is not a valid reason for keeping. However, if you want to make the argument, then consider that for every AFDed MP sketch article that's been kept several have been deleted, including "Blackmail" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackmail (Monty Python)|deleted]]), "Albatross" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albatross (Monty Python)|deleted]]), "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu," "Court Charades" and "Dennis Moore" (all [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu|deleted]]), "Erotic film" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic film (Monty Python skit)|deleted]]), "Conquistador Coffee Campaign" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquistador Coffee Campaign|deleted]]), "Johann Gambolputty" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Gambolputty|deleted]]), "Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election|deleted)]], "Medical Love Song" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Love Song|deleted]]), "Silly Job Interview ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silly Job Interview|deleted]]) and "Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism|deleted]]) and many others that did not survive being prodded. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::*'''comment''' yes many have been deleted, and i suspect they will be remade eventually, it is that people recognize them as notable. if your point is about it needs verifiable material, then you should have marked them with cleanup, expert, and improve. No i am saying that at this point in time, some of the material might not have verifiable sources to show notability, but others certainly will. I haven't researched it, but then neither did you, you just marked it as delete, when it seems to me that again, you mark something for delete that you really want improved. stop WP:Bureucracy in favor of WP:common. I also want to note that I saw at least one Prod of yours in recent history that wasn't marked with an edit summary. It might be that some of these need deletion review. please use edit summaries on deletion proposals. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:::*My point is not that they need to be cleaned up. My point is, has been and will continue to be that ''the sketches are not independently notable''. The notability of Monty Python does not extend to every three-minute segment that the troupe committed to film. This is honestly not that complex of a position, and all of your Wiki-lawyering and (incorrect) supposition about my motives, my desires or my actions does not suddenly make what is not notable, notable. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::::*I have no suppositions about your actions other than to assume you are trying to do the right thing. That said, these are notable and python's notability does extend to some extent and your claim that they are not only requires reliable sources to show that they are, if you only need reliable sources, then you need to mark that first, and stop wasting people's time with unwarranted deletion nominations. if it requires cleanup and you are allowing for that, that is where it should start. I'm not wikilawering here, not deleting python sketches to me seems like wp:common, i did make a request that you mark prods on their edit summary, i think that is reasonable. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::*You're still falsely assuming that I did no research before prodding and then nominating these articles. I do mark prods in their edit summary. I missed one? So sorry, big deal. Is anyone going to miss the big PROD notice on the article? No. And, I again call attention to the fact that the person who removed the expired prods ''acknowledges that the sketches are not notable'' but was apparently upset that not every single MP sketch was prodded at the same time. And now the nomination is being criticised because they ''were'' all done at the same time. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''List individually''' I havent the least idea whether any MP sketch is notable, as I avoid him altogether. But I think it reasonable a priori that the notability of them will differ, and so I ask that the nom be withdrawn and they be listed individually. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. It is clear that the nominator has not made any effort to investigate whether these skits are notable as he says above (emphasis is mine) " It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which '''I'm sure''' are fansites and other unreliable sources)". He is obviously arguing that they are not notable unless we can prove that they are notable. Given that the subject matter decades old and has many hits with a google search and given that there are 7 skits, it's time consuming for us to search through and find material showing notability of these skits. Unless the nominator can prove that they are not notable, at this point I recommend speedy keep and close this AFD, give the authors a chance to beef up the articles to show notability (say a couple months), and if the nominator really wants to, he can renominate these articles individually after the authors have beefed up the articles. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:*You can't demonstrate the notability of the sketches so you resort to more Wikilawyering. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::*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, --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</span><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
**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|<span style="color:#CC0000;">J</span><span style="color:#00CC00;">I</span><span style="color:#0000CC;">P</span>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
**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)
*'''Keep''' The current python project for instance does little service to the particular phenomenon of Monty Python - and its effect on many in the english speaking word - any traces/aspects of the phenomenon - however slight in some editors views - need careful preservation from the lumberjacks. cheers [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:*So you're suggesting that ''every single thing associated with Monty Python ever'' should have its own article? With no regard to the actual notability of the thing in question? That viewpoint does not appear to have any foundation in our policies and guidelines, which establish standards of notability for Wikipedia articles. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Response''' - nowhere in this did i say what you are attributing to me - I concur with Lou Sander above - take careful note of the advice [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep all''' - Several books regarding Monty Python have been published, going into often extraordinary detail regarding the subject, yes, including individual skits. I think that those volumes help establish the notability of these skits. Having said that, I have no objections to the possibility of merging and/or otherwise combining several of these articles into a reduced number of articles, perhaps one per episode, after the articles have been worked on a bit more and it is clearer exactly how long they are likely to ultimately be. But deletion at this point seems uncalled for. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:*The notability of Python as a whole and the notability of other Python sketches does not translate to notability for ''these sketches''. In the absence of substantial coverage of these sketches the coverage of other sketches in these sources is irrelevant. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::My statement above was not intended to deal directly with the subject of these skits per se. I don't think any of us know one way or another whether these skits do receive substantive treatment in the relevant books yet. I know I don't, having just started doing anything with that subject today. However, I do believe that if the skits are found to be non-notable individually, they will almost certainly be turned into sections of other articles shortly thereafter. If that is the case, then deleting them now, before such notability can be established by the comparatively few individuals who have had any activity with the subject area, might prove to be counterproductive. If they do qualify as non-notable, though, like I said, I am certain the content will be merged into other articles, probably individual episode articles, and probably shortly after non-notability is determined. I just don't see a need to rush to judgement here. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::*I don't think allowing non-notable plot summary articles to sit around unchallenged for six months is a "rush to judgment." [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Neither do I, and, in fact, I made no such statement. If that is the amount of time they have been "sitting around", however, I could agree that you might have been justified in starting the conversation. However, I believe with at least a few people, myself included, with any luck now engaging in at least some active work on the articles, I think it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that that much time would be required. And I could certainly agree to a potential renomination in a much shorter time if no action were taken in the interim. Actually, if that heppened, I'm fairly sure I'd support deletion myself. But I do think that perhaps a period of one or two months to work on all the articles invovled would not be necessarily onerous. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||