Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 46:
:*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, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><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)
| |||