Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
difference |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 9 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 47 ⟶ 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)
*'''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>
| |||