Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blancmange (Monty Python)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Episode Seven: You're no fun any more. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blancmange (Monty Python)

There are no reliable sources that are substantively about this fictional item. Fails Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, fails WP:FICT, fails notability guidelines Otto4711 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. The real test for all those links is whether it's notable as a Python sketch. Seeing 20 news links for it [1] and the iconic status of the pudding art, I suspect so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects Sketch (2nd nomination). Was properly spun out of blancmange (food) two years ago. JJB 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability of Monty Python as a whole is not inherited by every sketch from the show. A number of other sketch articles have been deleted, including Blackmail, Albatross, Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu, Charades, Dennis Moore, Erotic film, Conquistador Coffee Campaign, Johann Gambolputty, Mr Hilter and the Minehead by-election, Silly Job Interview, Medical Love Song and Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism. The news hits (variation on WP:GOOGLE) appear to be passing mentions of the sketch rather than substantive coverage. The AFD to which you linked relied heavily on the non-inherited notability of Monty Python and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and IMHO the closing admin should have discounted almost every keep !vote in favor of the policy and guideline-based arguments for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I suspect there are many, many people out there who had no idea what a blancmange was before being exposed to this skit...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The standard for Wikipedia is not "had people heard of it before?" The standard is whether there are independent reliable sources that substantively cover the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I appreciated the existence of the article when I went to look up information about blancmanges in general. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there is an indisputable "reliable source", the Monty Python episodes themselves. Media objects stand as their own best source, and there is no difference between seeing an apisode and writing down what happened, and reading a book and writing down what you read. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all that can be said about a sketch from a TV show is what can be written about it by watching it and "writing down what happened," then the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. There need to be independent reliable sources on a topic to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge; insufficient non-trivial secondary coverage for its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with another article. Not notable enough on it's own to be a separate article, but as it's noted on Wimbledon Championships, should have some mentioning somewhere to do with other Monty Python skits. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - canonically, a very important playlet that deviates from the usual short sketch format within the Python body of work. jamesgibbon 15:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage by reliable sources. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.