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

Revision as of 02:38, 27 September 2007

Revision as of 12:33, 27 September 2007

Line 50:

**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 successfilly 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|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[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)

Line 55 ⟶ 56:

*'''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)