Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Creosote


 * 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 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Creosote

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - no reliable sources attest to the independent notability of this character. Fails WP:NOT, WP:FICT and WP:N. A few random mentions in various pop culture items does not equal notability. Otto4711 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Another lazy nomination which does not make the slightest effort to demonstrate that the article cannot be improved as our editing policy specifies.  I made a quick search and soon found a reliable source which discusses the topic at length.  I may now improve the article accordingly but the chilling effect of threatened deletion is a disruptive obstruction to this.  The nominator failed to discuss the article's problems on its talk page and has made no attempt to improve the article himself.  Such superficial drive-by deletion should be censured since it disrupts our essential process of article development by slow accretion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A definitive character from a major award winning film. Plenty of reference work available on the net and in printed media. A worthy subject for expansion, not deletion.  M♠ssing  Ace   09:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep major characters in major works of fiction are notable.DGG (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I would not say that being a character in a major film automatically confers notability (WP:FICT does have more specific requirements), in this case there are indeed plenty of secondary reliable sourses regarding this character and his influence outside of the film. Apart from the source cited by Colonel Warden, here are a few more random examples from a GoogleBooks search:, etc. While these are fairly short mentions, they do demostrate that the Mr Creosote has become something of an iconic cultural character, an archetypal glutton. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An iconic and notable character, I look forward to the improvement of the article based on the above sources. The article as it stands has (currently unreferenced) significant real-world content and is not a plot rehashing and list of random pop culture references as implied by the nominator. This content is specific enough in its detail to make referencing of these not too difficult. --Canley (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete and Comment Look. We all liked this movie.  The movie won awards.  The creators of the movie are the gold standard for notability among comedy troupes.  But the article contains one reference where the character is discussed my a principal creator of the film.  Sources (as Col. Warden shows above) may exist which impute notability to the subject.  that isn't really an excuse for haranguing the nominator over the substance of the nomination (or accusing him/her of being lazy).  Also, some honesty needs to be exercised about the "chilling effect" of deletion nominations.  While a giant template warning of impending deletion may dissuade the novice editor from making marginal changes to an article it cannot really be claimed that it dissuades a veteran editor who is familiar with the deletion process.  Many articles which come to AfD unsourced but ARE SOURCEABLE become speedy-closes as reliable sourcing is introduced.  I've personally saved three articles like this one from deletion.  Once sourcing was introduced in the text of the article, the nominator withdrew the nomination.  I'm not advocating the use of deletion before doing a cursory check for references.  In this case the nomination may have benefited from a sentence testifying that the editor looked for sourcing but felt the sourcing imputed limited notability.  Furthermore, it is the burden of the editor adding the content to source it.  Good faith on the part of the nominator does not amount to an obligation to source contentious claims.  If and when the sources listed above make it into the article, I'll change my vote. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience of improving articles during AFD is not encouraging. For a relevant Monty Python example, see the Rabbit of Caerbannog.  I went to some lengths to save that article, citing over 20 sources and yet there were several editors who obdurately clung to their delete vote in the teeth of the evidence.  The nominator in that case has since been sanctioned for bad behaviour and yet here we are again with editors such as yourself refusing to accept good sources when they are pointed out.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. One, that article seems to have survived the deletion debate.  Two, show me WHERE in my comment I "refused to accept good sources when they are pointed out."  The fact that editors may hang on to positions in an argument is nothing new.  An editor that refuses to accept reality wholesale and is later cited by the community for disruptive behavior is a particularly poor example upon which to base a view about all editors in a deletion debate.  I am not the last editor you clashed with.  Neither is Otto.  We are all distinct individuals whose opinions need to be respected on the merits of evidence and who personally need to be respected regardless of the merits of our opinions.  Just because some other article was nominated in bad faith doesn't poison the well for future nominations of different articles. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly merge A very memorable character, and I take such long lists of "in popular culture" mentions as a sure sign of notability, even if it just serves for merging. – sgeureka t•c 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although I don't know of the character is as deserving of the article as the entire scene. Either way, I think the name would be the same anyway. Needs a rewrite and many more refs regarding its notoriety, but they are certainly out there. The scene itself contains a very rare example of menstrual comedy that has been noted as well - . Jim Miller (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Clear editor interest and effort as well.  Plus, it is hard to fail the fiction guideline that looks like it won't be improved, just as the notability guideline is currently weighing multiple dramatic proposals for revisions.  Finally, aspects of Monty Python are indeed encyclopedic.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; quite coincidentally I had typed "Mr. Creosote" in the search box, having just watched this absolutely amazing skit again on YouTube, and wondered what Wikipedia would have to say about it. Up for deletion was quite a surprise. Not notable?  Seriously?  This is one of the most infamously disgusting, and hilarious, comedy scenes ever filmed.  Sources abound:  some are listed above, and there are Monty Python documentaries as well.  Quite a bit can actually be added to this short article.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral It is probably snowing. But I note that the article STILL has only one source that might considered reliable currently referenced.  If those that support or oppose a merger could indicate as much on the talk page, it would be appreciated. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - A reference for every one of our keep and delete votes could easily be added. I'll add one for my keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously keep - Mr Creosote is one of British TV's most famous characters. What numpty thought it was worth deleting? Sigh! Tris2000 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Monty Python and Philosophy link provided by Colonel Warden, clearly belies the "no reliable sources" claim. --Stormie (talk) 06:23, 3 July 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.