Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knife and Wife


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @194  · 03:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Knife and Wife

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not at all notable Bumlord97 (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. One-off which didn't seem to get much coverage at the time or since. All I can find other than the ref used in the article is this piece from the Evening Standard (unfortunately not free to view, but the summary can be seen). Doesn't seem to have much notability to it other than the people involved. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this one-off episode. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Knife and Wife" (entered with the speech marks on Google) returns over a million hits, the vast majority of which seem to be referring to the show itself. The show has an article all to itself in the BBC Guide to Comedy reference manual. It was voiced by some extremely notable voice actors, also part of a very notable series (the Comedy Lab). --Edchilvers (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Why delete a perfectly good and notable article, this was a cult comedy show on a cult series and an important project for the cast involved? --Mr runt (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep – I smell socks → . MuZemike 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is literally three sentences long despite being over three years old now, and there's only one shaky source to support any of it. Hardly what you could describe as a "perfectly good and notable article". -88.108.201.150 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Socks or no socks, this appears to be an insignificant one off with no lasting notability to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge and Delete. Doesn't appear notable. Even IMDB isn't interested. I would change my mind if someone could provide suitable references, but I've had a very quick look myself and can't see anything that caught my eye.  If indeed it is relevant to Comedy Lab then perhaps a paragraph in there wouldn't go amiss, but I still think this should be simply deleted rather than re-directed Guinness (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think GFDL or whatever licensing scheme we've moved over to now prohibits a "merge and delete". We either merge, or we delete, but cannot do both.  JBsupreme (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I would probably go for a straight delete...even one paragraph in the Comedy Lab article would be a considerable fraction of the entire article. Guinness (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A part of history of animation and lots of google links for "Knife and Wife"+animation, hence notable. The article is expandable. Xuz (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of those are copies of the original broadcast press release, lists or brief mentions in other contexts. Show me one article about the animation in a reliable third-party source. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. The coverage is not significant. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of hits on Google, frequently cited in reference books. Simply because there is not a lot of articles on the internet is a pretty shallow reason for deleting an article--Edchilvers (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are only 21 hits on google for "Knife and Wife"+animation (the fact these aren't significant I stated above) and one results on google books which is a dictionary. Would you care to cite some of these sources? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The Radio Times to Comedy by Mark Lewisholm, published every couple of years gives this show an article all of its own, the book is pretty definitive. The aerticle is also mentioned in many Monty Python related literature as it was originally intended to be a Terry Jones vehicle - look in the index of their 'autobiography.' --Edchilvers (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Not being able to find an article on the internet doesn't make it non-notable. Notable article, notable people involved, I don't see the issue --Mr runt (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (Note that Mr runt has already !voted above when originally listed). Dreaded Walrus t c 16:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The original nomination was loaded with socks, we should be able to vote again, there doesn't look as if there is going to be enough to carry a clear consensus in this vote either--Edchilvers (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to vote again though, unless your mind has changed since your original vote, in which case you can just change it and explain why. Feel free to add extra rationale e.t.c., but when a debate is relisted, that's merely to get more new people to include their views in the AfD. It does not mean everyone needs to vote again. The old votes are still displayed and will still be counted upon the conclusion of the AfD (well, their opinions will be). Any socks/SPAs will be duly noted as such by the closing admin. There's literally no reason to vote again, and I can't think of a single relisted AfD where people have then went on to recast their !votes as though the original listing didn't happen. (Oh, and if there is no consensus to delete by the end of this, then the article is kept by default, so either way you're getting what you want). Dreaded Walrus t c 00:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - of course it's notable. Perhaps original nominator didn't watch Channel 4 much on a Thursday night. :-) Tris2000 (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that the notablity guidlines on Wikipedia don't appear to contain the qualification "appeared on Channel 4 on a Thursday night". Perhaps you might like to propose an amendment. :-) Guinness (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ROFL! You know what I mean, though. If he/she had seen the programme, I don't believe he/she would have queried its notability for an instant. Tris2000 (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Userfy to me, please Redirect to Siriol I will take a few days to search out one or several articles to move the facts to and then ask for a userspace delete. I merged teh content to the parent company. A redirect will do fine. Miami33139 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2009 (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.