Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocational Guidance Counsellor


 * 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. BJ Talk 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vocational Guidance Counsellor

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

This sketch seems to be no more notable than any other of the hundreds of Python episodes, it's completely unsupported by reliable non-self-published sources, and does nothing to assert its notability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination seems to have done nothing to satisfy WP:BEFORE. In a minute or so, I was able to find a good source for this material which I have cited and there are several more.  Monty Python material is usually highly notable - the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch was front page news the other day - and this is no exception. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I fear I'm going to be repeating myself today. This article does not assert the notability of the subject, does not have external reliable and unbiased sources, and doesn't pass our fiction guidelines for inclusion. Delete or merge in with an episode guide. To Warden's comments above, I cannot consider a Monty Python-specific source as establishing notability for a Monty Python-related sketch. Can you find a source in the New York Times, Time Magazine, or a similar source which mentions this article. JRP (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your principle is not sound. Many topics such as mathematics are only covered in sources which relate to that topic.  Your requirement that topics be mentioned in general newspapers too is absurd and would leave us only with articles about current affairs and celebrities.  Also, it is difficult to retrieve newspaper coverage from the 1960s online - the UK library I use only goes back to the 1990s.  This is why I searched for books and the book I found in this case seems an excellent source.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a significant difference between a peer reviewed technical magazine that specializes in a topic such as mathematics and a limited compendium of trivia about a work of fiction. I will be happy to agree with you if you found an article in a general book on television history which discusses the sketch, but a book specifically on Monty Python shouldn't be considered in this case. JRP (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, trivia. In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! But, for example, there is rather intense guides written for many cultural icons and often more than one. I have half a dozen guidebooks to every aspect of writing and filming Doctor Who for example, and I've seen books on Harry Potter, Tolkien, Piers Anthony's Xanth, M*A*S*H, Seinfeld, and others. Although those works get published and have tremendous information, everything covered in them can't be notable. You can't argue that we need articles about every Hobbit (mentioned) in the shire because they're all written about in the various Tolkien reference works, and similarly just because Monty Python elements are written about in Monty Python references doesn't make them notable. The fact that these references are written is an excellent indication of the importance of the subject matter and will help us to produce absolutely fabulous Featured Articles someday, but we do have limits. And this one happens to be mine. JRP (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to And Now for Something Completely Different. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I kinda like that the sketch first aired in 1969, was was released in two different compilations in 1970, and released again in 1972. It is among sketches used by reviewers when comparimg the 1969 version with Cleese/Palin and the 1972 version with Cleese/Chapman in their reviews of Palin's and Chapman's similarities and differences.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - Is there a list of sketches on Wikipedia somewhere? - jc37 08:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is covered by many reliable sources way outside the field of Python fandom. It is frequently cited in books, academic papers and newspapers as a prime example of how accountants are stereotyped. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. It does appear that people better know this as the "lion tamer" sketch, and an appropriate search reveals many more sources. One of the problems with verifying notability for TV episodes and sketches is that a lot of coverage can occur in reliable sources which never even mention the "official" name of the episode or sketch. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 27 March 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.