Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects Sketch (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. John254 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Architects Sketch
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating all of the Monty Python Sketches listed here for deletion. These all have one of three verification statuses: A) None at all 2) A copy of the script 3) A link to the sketch on YouTube. Any sketch in the category of sketches that had any verification at all that was different that what I listed above was left out.

These articles are not notable; not every sketch by Monty Python is notable. They must each be notable in their own right: they must be significantly covered by independant, reliable sources. These however, are not.

In addition, these are all in very poor states verification-wise. There are no reliable sources.

Addendum: I know that normally mass nominations like this are usually bad. However, there is no reasonable justification in my mind, that any one of these articles would be kept and the rest deleted based on the current state of the article. They're all the same policy-wise. And I'd probably get yelled at if I listed twenty AfDs that were all the same. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I closed Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches as "train wreck - in any event, no consensus to delete them all, and no clear visibility to what the outcome of individual discussions would be based on this discussion." That AFD had several of these, but far fewer than this list.  I suspect that outcome is likely to occur again.  GRBerry 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I botched the templates on all the pages, so I'm currently trying to fix that. So I'll look at that AfD as soon as I fix things.... seresin ( ¡? ) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * GRBerry's comment was not about templates, but about the flawed logic of nominating so many articles in a batch AfD. Your templates can be perfect, but that doesn't change the inherent problem of this AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for Argument Sketch and Undertaker's Sketch Neutral for the rest. The Undertaker's Sketch is notable for the fact it wasn't broadcast after its initial airing. The Argument Sketch has notability outside the show (can't find any sources for that but I know there's some). The rest i'm neutral on. Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black Hole Strange Frequencies 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite a few of these are missing from the Python Wikia Sketches Category. Anything that is deleted here could be transwikied via GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeep/Merge - preserve as many as possible in whatever format gets through the issue of the repeated nominator - so that they are all not consigned to the dustbin - for the sake of preserving I would be prepared (in time) to combine/amalagamate/whatever so that at least a sample/view of the sketches - as they are increasingly historic snatches of an increasingly aged group of old sods - to methodically remove all is an unecessary act and should be avoided at all costs (as far as a monty python enthusiast of the past is concerned)- SatuSuro 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All - I just spent an hour cleaning up the Cheese Shop sketch at the outset of this purge. I expect that they all can be improved too but so many will take time.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't deal with media articles, so I won't vote. But how are these different from, say, episodes of The Simpsons, which I presume are considered notable?  Other stuff exists, of course, but I'm not sure how this is any different.  Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, a good amount of those episodes are notable in their own right. For instance, I believe that every episode in the eighth season is GA or FA. These, however, have no such qualifications. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's mostly recentism and systemic bias. These Monty Python episodes were produced in sixties when the internet did not exist and even colour TV was a novelty (there's a reference to it in the Architect's sketch). Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all - These are classic and historic sketches, some of which are recreated today all over the world in schools, on stages, youtube and any other kind of performance/media outlet. Just by choosing one of these sketches at random, Sam Peckinpah's "Salad Days,", a one second g-search turns up a CNN article about violence that uses the sketch in the article's opening as a prime (and comic) example of violence gone array .  This nomination is also an example of the absurdity of large batch nominations when editors are bound to have unlimited "keep"/"delete" combinations.  --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please add verification and notability-granting sources. Claiming that since one sketch has a brief mention in a news piece, they all are notable is absurd. They must all be notable, and verified. As for the mass-nom, they are all in the same state verification and notability-wise at the time of nomination. It is logical to include them in one nomination. Twenty different nominations would probably be deemed disruption. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By your use of "verification", I'm confused. Are you now charging that these articles fail WP:VERIFY?   Twenty different nominations would actually not be a case of WP:DISRUPT.  A useless large batch-AfD like this one is actually more disruptive than the former.--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They clearly fail WP:VERIFY. Each of the articles listed has no reliable sources. I disagree. Twenty AfDs with the exact same rationale would have been disruptive. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again an editor has misunderstood WP:VERIFY. A topic doesn't fail WP:VERIFY if the content is currently unverified, but only if the article topic is unverifiable .  Content on many of the most popular sketches in history is by no means impossible to verify.  If an article topic can be verified, WP:VERIFY is not by any means criteria for article deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep All. As Nyttend points out, this is the sort of content that is usually considered perfectly acceptable (as with individual Simpsons episodes,  Pokémon, and many many others).  This isn't just pulling out isolated examples of other articles (which is what I assume WP:OTHER is talking about) -- this is the sort of thing that wikipedia does for pretty much anything that's as notable as Monty Python, so barring a major change in wikipedia policy, I think this should be treated the same way. Klausness (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what WP:OTHER says. Most of the articles you refer to should not have their own articles. They are not independantly notable, and most have verification problems. These articles are both not notable and have serious verification problems. Just because other articles have not been deleted/merged/redirected does not mean that these get a free pass. AfDs are to be discussed on the discussed articles' merits alone, not "since Similar Article X hasn't been deleted, these shouldn't be either". seresin ( ¡? ) 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all - I'd argue that if every episode of The Simpsons is notable enough to have its own article then the memorable sketches from MPFC are sufficiently notable as well. The sketch articles definitely need to be improved to meet Wiki standards though. -- Hux (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, basically, since other thing have articles, these should too? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.