Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:16, 23 September 2007

Revision as of 22:45, 23 September 2007

Line 32:

:::::::*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 39:

:*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)