Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches


 * 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 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. GRBerry 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Several Monty Python sketches
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses
 * Arthur 'Two Sheds' Jackson‎
 * Conrad Poohs‎
 * Kilimanjaro Expedition‎
 * Vocational Guidance Counsellor‎
 * Decomposing Composers‎
 * Marriage Guidance Counsellor‎

Delete all - expired prods removed by editor who acknowledges that the sketches are not independently notable yet for some reason feels that the prods were "arbitrary." Given that the de-prodder acknowledges the lack of independent notability of the sketches and given that in addition to not being notable the sketches all fail WP:PLOT these seem like pretty obvious deletes. Otto4711 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP ALL - While its true that these Monty Python skits can not be absolutely defined as notable, I would argue that was actually the nature of Monty Python. Some of the funniest bits of that show were not the sketches which are commonly known, such as Spam, but really the segue pieces. I am therefore requesting removal of the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that Wikipedia provides an excellent repository for showcasing Monty Python skits. There are after all 100s of Monty Python Skits and only a handful that have been made into articles in Wikipedia. I could also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--10stone5 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The threshold requirement is notability, not how funny they are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I love the Fliegender Zirkus as much as the next geek, but this is not Pythonpedia. I was prepared to say that these should be kept, but I was thinking of things like the Spam sketch or the Parrot Sketch. DS 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge into List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. Fancruft. Unencyclopedic. We don't need, for instance, a list of all the composers mentioned in the Decomposing Composers sketch. Summarize each and include in the list. For a model of that, see Series 3, Episode 7 in the list, where a skit is described. I don't think redirecting is worthwhile. Noroton 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, there's no assertion of notability, usually no references and nothing but a plot summary in any of these articles. All against policy. Noroton 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge all (plot summaries) into one article. -- lucasbfr talk 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Information is worthwhile, but not as separate articles. Operating 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep why delete two sheds but keep nudge nudge? Either get rid of every MP sketch article or keep them all.  The only other sensible alternative is to only keep "notable" sketches, which would be sketches that have been written about or reviewed independently.  But that would be silly.  We have a separate article for every Frasier episode, not just the "notable" ones.  Likewise, it is fine to have an article for every MP sketch. Capmango 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is not a reasonable argument for against deletion. Maybe we shouldn't have an article on every Frasier episode. I don't know. It doesn't matter, because the existence of those articles has nothing to do with the existence of these. The existence of other MP sketch articles is not a valid reason for keeping these. Otto4711 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for deletion. And I was using the Frasier example illustritively.  There are plenty of situations where it makes sense as an encyclopedia to have a complete set.  We had similar discussions about NY subway stops.  Some are clearly notable, some maybe not so much, but if we're going to cover subway stops, it makes sense to cover all of them.  If we're going to cover Monty Python sketches (and we should), it makes WP:SENSE to cover them all. Capmango 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it makes sense to cover every MP sketch simply for the sake of completeness. Otto4711 12:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All or Renominate Separately so that we can discuss the merits of each separately. I know that the Anne Elk Brontosaurus episode is notable and the Kilamanjaro episode might be considered notable. Pocopocopocopoco 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have confidence in the ability of my fellow editors to be able to review this small selection of similar and related articles and come to a decision. If you have reliable sources that attest to the notability of the Anne Elk sketch then please add them to the article. Otto4711 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Anne Elk is notable because the whole sketch is in imdb.com memorable quotes. Pocopocopocopoco 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone's typing up a transcript of the sketch and uploading it to IMDB doesn't make the sketch notable. Anyone can type up a scene from a TV show and upload it there. Otto4711 02:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How? My impression is that IMDB does not follow the wikipedia model of everybody editing articles, especially memorable quote articles. IMDB is used extensively in wiki as a source. Besides, shouldn't you show why Anne Elk is not notable? Pocopocopocopoco 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of reliable sources that are substantially about the particular sketch demonstrate its lack of notability. IMDB allows anyone to upload information and exercises varying degrees of editorial control over the uploaded information. Its use as a source on Wikipedia has been contentious. However, even if IMDB were an impeccable source, the existence of a transcript of a particular sketch does not establish that the sketch is notable. Existence does not equal notability. Otto4711 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK how about this one Natural Kinds, Laws of Nature and Scientific Methodology by Peter Biggs pg 127 'I will call such minimal contentful accounts "Elk Theories" in honour of John Clease's Monty Python character. To the increasing high brow television presenter, Miss Anne Elk lovingly repeats her ("That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too") the theory of the brontosaurus' Pocopocopocopoco 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:N. Notability means that the subject of the article is the substantial subject of reliable sources. A one-line mention in a book of at least 127 pages is not substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of us do online searches as we can't be bothered to go to a library over something like this and it might be difficult to get the rigorous standards that you demand for something that was a skit over 30 years ago online. During it's time, this skit was popular, it occurred before my time but people still talked about it when I was a kid. I know your going to start putting in a whole bunch of wikipedia links like WP:OR but what can I say. This skit generates almost a thousand hits on google and there are some reliable sources like the one I mentioned above that make reference to it. Right now I don't have time to do a more extensive search at the different hits, perhaps later. Pocopocopocopoco 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but notability is not some rigorous unattainable standard. And the fact that you keep using words like "popular" indicates that you don't understand what notability is. It is not popularity. It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are fansites and other unreliable sources). It is not about things "referencing" the sketch in passing. It is about having independent reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. At the time this comment is written, none of the sketches have any sources demonstrating their independent notability beyond the fact that they're all Monty Python routines and therefore hilarious. If there are sources which can be added for any of them, I'll gladly review my opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all These are all plot summaries that don't do the show justice. Why should they be on Wikipedia? I'm sure the vast majority of Monty Python sketches are non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The theory on notability of Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses. That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too. :) Pocopocopocopoco 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All These are all notable sketches to some degree or another, especially when considered as a whole. On individual basis, i could see deleting one or two of them as non-notable, but as a block, i'm sorry, several are important cultural and historical events that reveal quite a bit about other things in society. It might be interesting to consider the recent actions on another monty python sketch that was not added in here, which is the football sketch which was recently kept.  Did these prods happen at the same time?  or after.  I suspect the same time.  Monty Python's work is notable, some of it is more notable than others. --Buridan 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is very easy to state that something has some sort of cultural significance. It is quite another to back up that claim with reliable sources. You're admitting here that at least some of this material does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines yet you're arguing to keep it anyway. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for keeping. The fact that the football sketch article was (wrongly IMHO) kept has no bearing on whether any of these articles should be kept, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. However, if you want to make the argument, then consider that for every AFDed MP sketch article that's been kept several have been deleted, including "Blackmail" (deleted), "Albatross" (deleted), "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu," "Court Charades" and "Dennis Moore" (all deleted), "Erotic film" (deleted), "Conquistador Coffee Campaign" (deleted), "Johann Gambolputty" (deleted), "Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election" (deleted), "Medical Love Song" (deleted), "Silly Job Interview (deleted) and "Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism" (deleted) and many others that did not survive being prodded. Otto4711 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment yes many have been deleted, and i suspect they will be remade eventually, it is that people recognize them as notable.  if your point is about it needs verifiable material, then you should have marked them with cleanup, expert, and improve.   No i am saying that at this point in time, some of the material might not have verifiable sources to show notability, but others certainly will.  I haven't researched it, but then neither did you, you just marked it as delete, when it seems to me that again, you mark something for delete that you really want improved.  stop WP:Bureucracy in favor of WP:common.  I also want to note that I saw at least one Prod of yours in recent history that wasn't marked with an edit summary. It might be that some of these need deletion review.  please use edit summaries on deletion proposals.  --Buridan 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is not that they need to be cleaned up. My point is, has been and will continue to be that the sketches are not independently notable. The notability of Monty Python does not extend to every three-minute segment that the troupe committed to film. This is honestly not that complex of a position, and all of your Wiki-lawyering and (incorrect) supposition about my motives, my desires or my actions does not suddenly make what is not notable, notable. Otto4711 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no suppositions about your actions other than to assume you are trying to do the right thing. That said, these are notable and python's notability does extend to some extent and your claim that they are not only requires reliable sources to show that they are, if you only need reliable sources, then you need to mark that first, and stop wasting people's time with unwarranted deletion nominations.  if it requires cleanup and you are allowing for that, that is where it should start. I'm not wikilawering here, not deleting python sketches to me seems like wp:common, i did make a request that you mark prods on their edit summary, i think that is reasonable.  --Buridan 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still falsely assuming that I did no research before prodding and then nominating these articles. I do mark prods in their edit summary. I missed one? So sorry, big deal. Is anyone going to miss the big PROD notice on the article? No. And, I again call attention to the fact that the person who removed the expired prods acknowledges that the sketches are not notable but was apparently upset that not every single MP sketch was prodded at the same time. And now the nomination is being criticised because they were all done at the same time. Otto4711 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * List individually I havent the least idea whether any MP sketch is notable, as I avoid him altogether. But I think it reasonable a priori that the notability of them will differ, and so I ask that the nom be withdrawn and they be listed individually. DGG (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is clear that the nominator has not made any effort to investigate whether these skits are notable as he says above (emphasis is mine) " It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are fansites and other unreliable sources)". He is obviously arguing that they are not notable unless we can prove that they are notable. Given that the subject matter decades old and has many hits with a google search and given that there are 7 skits, it's time consuming for us to search through and find material showing notability of these skits. Unless the nominator can prove that they are not notable, at this point I recommend speedy keep and close this AFD, give the authors a chance to beef up the articles to show notability (say a couple months), and if the nominator really wants to, he can renominate these articles individually after the authors have beefed up the articles. Pocopocopocopoco 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't demonstrate the notability of the sketches so you resort to more Wikilawyering. Otto4711 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as admission that you haven't investigated whether these sketches are notable. Also, I think it's funny when you accuse me of wikilawyering when you've been doing a great deal of wikilawyering above. Just look at the number of times you've linked in a wikipedia policy link above and I also believe you are trying to get us to abide by the letter of WP:N while violating it's spirit. Pocopocopocopoco 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're free to take it as an admission of anything you'd like, but sadly, your interpretation has absolutely no basis in reality. And gee, excuse me for including links to the policies I cite. Although I think you'll find that it's pretty standard practice, when citing a policy one believes supports one's position, to include a link to it in one's argument as a courtesy to those who might want to review the policy. It is not within the spirit of WP:N to retain material that is not notable; indeed, the spirit of WP:N is that subjects should be notable. I do not understand how WP:N can be read either in letter or in spirit to mean that articles on subjects that are not notable should be retained. So I'll ask again, can you offer any reliable sources that establish the independent notability of any of these subjects? Otto4711 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the tide against these articles may be turning per this discussion. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The major difference between that discussion and this one is that a source (however useful it may have been) was provided. To use the legal term, I don't think the precedent is "on all fours" with this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have added a script and video of Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses similar to how it is done for The Philosophers' Football Match which was a keep and I have also added the reference I mentioned above which "Philophers'" didn't have, so I believe this article should also be a keep. Other than this particular edit, I am not an author of these articles but as I mentioned, I believe that time is warranted to give the author(s) a chance to beef up the articles similar to how I've beefed up Anne Elk. Pocopocopocopoco 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you have successfully established that the sketch exists. However, existence does not equal notability. You have failed to demonstrate that this sketch is in any way independently notable. Otto4711 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all or at least renominate separately. Monty Python is very famous and thus all of its sketches should be at least mentioned. J I P  | Talk 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a considerable difference between "mentioned" and "have articles written about them", though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * List individually and (those who do it or are contemplating doing so), please refrain from responding to every comment or opinion that disagrees with yours. It's bad form, intimidating to some, and not good evidence of your individual brilliance. Better use of that brilliance would be to improve the articles in question, seek out whatever you think is missing and add it, etc. Lou Sander 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The current python project for instance does little service to the particular phenomenon of Monty Python - and its effect on many in the english speaking word - any traces/aspects of the phenomenon - however slight in some editors views - need careful preservation from the lumberjacks. cheers SatuSuro 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that every single thing associated with Monty Python ever should have its own article? With no regard to the actual notability of the thing in question? That viewpoint does not appear to have any foundation in our policies and guidelines, which establish standards of notability for Wikipedia articles. Otto4711 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response - nowhere in this did i say what you are attributing to me - I concur with Lou Sander above - take careful note of the advice SatuSuro 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Several books regarding Monty Python have been published, going into often extraordinary detail regarding the subject, yes, including individual skits. I think that those volumes help establish the notability of these skits. Having said that, I have no objections to the possibility of merging and/or otherwise combining several of these articles into a reduced number of articles, perhaps one per episode, after the articles have been worked on a bit more and it is clearer exactly how long they are likely to ultimately be. But deletion at this point seems uncalled for. John Carter 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability of Python as a whole and the notability of other Python sketches does not translate to notability for these sketches. In the absence of substantial coverage of these sketches the coverage of other sketches in these sources is irrelevant. Otto4711 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My statement above was not intended to deal directly with the subject of these skits per se. I don't think any of us know one way or another whether these skits do receive substantive treatment in the relevant books yet. I know I don't, having just started doing anything with that subject today. However, I do believe that if the skits are found to be non-notable individually, they will almost certainly be turned into sections of other articles shortly thereafter. If that is the case, then deleting them now, before such notability can be established by the comparatively few individuals who have had any activity with the subject area, might prove to be counterproductive. If they do qualify as non-notable, though, like I said, I am certain the content will be merged into other articles, probably individual episode articles, and probably shortly after non-notability is determined. I just don't see a need to rush to judgement here. John Carter 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think allowing non-notable plot summary articles to sit around unchallenged for six months is a "rush to judgment." Otto4711 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, and, in fact, I made no such statement. If that is the amount of time they have been "sitting around", however, I could agree that you might have been justified in starting the conversation. However, I believe with at least a few people, myself included, with any luck now engaging in at least some active work on the articles, I think it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that that much time would be required. And I could certainly agree to a potential renomination in a much shorter time if no action were taken in the interim. Actually, if that heppened, I'm fairly sure I'd support deletion myself. But I do think that perhaps a period of one or two months to work on all the articles invovled would not be necessarily onerous. John Carter 14:35, 28 September 2007 (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.