Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduced Milkmen


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seduced Milkmen

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

I'm not sure how notable or encyclopediac this is; also is a stub with no sources. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete, lack of reliable sources that discuss this sketch as their subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss this sketch found by Google News and Google Books. I've cited a couple of them in the article, including an academic study. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable enough Python sketch. I'm a bit iffy about having articles on individual sketches, but the principle is well established (Category:Monty Python sketches), so... Rd232 talk 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. The nomination's uncertainty indicates that proper deletion process has not been followed.  AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We've been down this road already, eg, . Radiopathy (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article looks fine.Quistisffviii (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep same reasons as the last sketch was kept. It was on the show, and one of their films.   D r e a m Focus  12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to Merge to list of Monty Python sketches but that's been redirected. The google book and news hits show that it's famous but I don't really see much in-depth discussion. Deletion is obviously not appropriate. Nerfari (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a suitable and nicely sourced stub. It might grow... it might not... but it meets the criteria for inclusion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:18, 7 April 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.