Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 38:
*'''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)
| |||