Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 40:
::*'''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)
::::*I have no suppositions about your actions other than to assume you are trying to do the right thing. That said, these are notable and python's notability does extend to some extent and your claim that they are not only requires reliable sources to show that they are, if you only need reliable sources, then you need to mark that first, and stop wasting people's time with unwarranted deletion nominations. if it requires cleanup and you are allowing for that, that is where it should start. I'm not wikilawering here, not deleting python sketches to me seems like wp:common, i did make a request that you mark prods on their edit summary, i think that is reasonable. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::*You're still falsely assuming that I did no research before prodding and then nominating these articles. I do mark prods in their edit summary. I missed one? So sorry, big deal. Is anyone going to miss the big PROD notice on the article? No. And, I again call attention to the fact that the person who removed the expired prods ''acknowledges that the sketches are not notable'' but was apparently upset that not every single MP sketch was prodded at the same time. And now the nomination is being criticised because they ''were'' all done at the same time. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''List individually''' I havent the least idea whether any MP sketch is notable, as I avoid him altogether. But I think it reasonable a priori that the notability of them will differ, and so I ask that the nom be withdrawn and they be listed individually. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. It is clear that the nominator has not made any effort to investigate whether these skits are notable as he says above (emphasis is mine) " 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)". He is obviously arguing that they are not notable unless we can prove that they are notable. Given that the subject matter decades old and has many hits with a google search and given that there are 7 skits, it's time consuming for us to search through and find material showing notability of these skits. Unless the nominator can prove that they are not notable, at this point I recommend speedy keep and close this AFD, give the authors a chance to beef up the articles to show notability (say a couple months), and if the nominator really wants to, he can renominate these articles individually after the authors have beefed up the articles. [[User:Pocopocopocopoco|Pocopocopocopoco]] 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:*You can't demonstrate the notability of the sketches so you resort to more Wikilawyering. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
| |||