Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Bishop


 * 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   no consensus. Big Dom  20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead Bishop

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability separate from the TV show. Claim of "infamy" not substantiated by reliable sources. WP:BEFORE (i.e. the snide suggestion from the de-prodder, as if I hadn't actually looked in Google Scholar and Google Books) fails to demonstrate significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the WP:BEFORE comment was entirely appropriate, given the text of your PROD. If you want me to not say "search first", and you've actually searched first, then just simply say, "I searched first". Simple, no? More detailed rationale to follow. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources: Evening Independent, 1982, CNN, 2006, Something in Norwegian that Google News thinks is an RS, which I include here because it seems to be central to the piece. There's at least two other pay-per-view sources at Google News Archive.  As the article notes, the sketch is also known as "the church police", (as evidenced by this program listing) which yields other RS hits--Carolina Journal, 2002, and four others which also appear pay-per-view, three of which appear unique, via Google News Archive.  That's in roughly 5 minutes of searching. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (And to follow up on the other comments--if you're only looking in Google Scholar and Books for RS, you're really missing out on Google News Archive. Since reviews are perfectly good RS'es for cultural phenomena like comedy sketches, you'll miss out on many of the most relevant sources if you omit it) Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More sources from non-free news databases (Lexis-Nexis Academic):
 * "Monty Python's boring circus: The twits and cross-dressers weren't really all that funny." The Ottawa Citizen, September 03, 1999, FINAL, 1126 words, Ed Barrett. Skit one of several mentioned, no substantial commentary on the skit itself.
 * "Not Quite Dead: Monty Python To Reunite?" Say Anything, August 23, 2009 Sunday 9:02 AM EST, 291 words. trivial mention.
 * "Finding laughs on the Web" The Leader-Post (Regina, Saskatchewan), September 14, 2002 Saturday Final Edition, Weekender; Cyberbeat; Pg. G3, 473 words, Kevin O'Connor. Again, skit mentioned as a representative Python skit without substantial commentary.
 * "Can anyone else tell right from wrong?" The Houston Chronicle, March 18, 2002, Monday, 727 words, JAMES HOWARD GIBBONS. Interesting piece here, where the editorial writer uses the punchline of the skit in reference to Andrea Yates' sanity.
 * "DRIVE DEFENSIVELY, NOT AGGRESSIVELY" Fort McMurray Today (Alberta), July 29, 2005 Friday, EDITORIAL/OPINION; Gimme Some Grammar; Pg. A4, 850 words, BY MICHAEL HALL. As above, a reference to the skit's punchline ("it's a fair cop, but society's to blame.") in an opinion piece.
 * Note: 98% of the article is just copied from another wiki.  Sy  n 07:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not really a notable sketch that happened to be one of hundreds performed by some of the most notable comedians of the 20th century. This isn't exactly the Dead Parrot sketch in notability terms. MLA (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is an ex-sketch. Sandman888 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and add the above as references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (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.