Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albatross (Monty Python)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. The reasons given for keeping have been effectively refuted, as funny as this sketch is. --Coredesat 07:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albatross (Monty Python)

Albatross (Monty Python) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete - The sketch is not independently notable and the notability of Monty Python is not inherited by every sketch that appeared on the show or in one of the films or records. Also fails WP:PLOT as being nothing but a description of various permutations of the sketch. Otto4711 13:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is Not Paper, and we can afford the trivial disk space and bandwidth required to store these articles detailing some of the best, and most notable British comedy of the 20th century. I have tagged the article for Rescue so some (more) sources should be added shortly. I would also like to point out that this article's notability is no greater or lesser than any of the other sketches. References in popular culture may assist in the rescue of this article - Fosnez 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pointing at other articles in an attempt to justify this one, in other words WP:WAX, is not a compelling argument. However, in this instance I will agree with you that this sketch is no more notable than many other articles that were formerly housed in that category, for instance "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), not to mention the dozen or more that were deleted in response to being prodded. If the only thing that's notable about a sketch is that Monty Python performed it, it's not in and of itself notable. NOT:PAPER is not a free pass for an article that otherwise does not pass policies and guidelines. Otto4711 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Deletion is never the first step - Where are the merge requests? Where are the transwiki requests? Have the articles been tagged for improvement? This AfD should be closed because these steps have not been followed. Fosnez 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:FICTION is a guideline. There is absolutely no requirement that any of these things you mention be done prior to an AFD and I have to question whether your comment here is made in good faith. Otto4711 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTINHERITED which you have used in your nom is not even a guideline - its an essay! Also, on precisely what grounds are you accusing me of not commenting in good faith? Fosnez 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Subjective judgement of notability can be difficult, but in this case don't see how an editor's description of the sketch serves an encyclopedic interest. Certainly every hint of life is drained out of the sketch was drained out by the matter-of-fact recitation. The only way I'd say keep is if the article was about what people have written about the sketch. "This is the part I like" just isn't encyclopedic. MarkBul 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless some sources for its independent notability comes to the rescue. But we should have a "notable sketches" article under Python and this could be included... Lundse 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep due to widespread popularity of Monty Python and interest in their sketches. There is obviously no consensus on these articles so perhaps a compromise would be something like Notable Monty Python sketches? Also, as a note to Otto, I know we disagree in a lot of these discussions, so just to give you a little clarification of why I usually tend to favor keeping articles that are not hoaxes (I did recently "vote" to delete the Insane Pro Wrestling hoax, so I actually do NOT always "vote" to keep), one of the major motivating factors for me wanting to keep and merge is ""Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales, Slashdot Interview (28 July 2004) That section that I italicized from the founder of this site is inspiring and seems a worthy endevour and I fear that if we keep deleting stuff largely out of IDON'TLIKEIT reasoning, we're falling short of that objective. Anyway, I hope that just clarifies somewhat where I'm coming from on this discussions. Have a great day! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between knowledge and information. The White Pages is information but we would not list the contents of the White Pages on Wikipedia. You also really need to understand the difference between WP:ILIKEIT concerns and concerns that are related to actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I happen to be a big Monty Python fan. Love the TV show, love the movies. But my personal likes and dislikes, and your personal likes and dislikes, are not the basis for whether an article on an individual sketch from an individual film or episode passes the relevant policies and guidelines. Popularity is not notability. Interest in is not notability. "Not a hoax" is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article. Existence is not notability. If you're going to continue to participate in AFD, I would strongly encourage you to read through the various policies and guidelines a few times so that when you see an argument grounded in policy and guidelines you'll understand where the argument is coming from and when you believe an article should be kept you're able to present an argument that is grounded in policy and guidelines. Otto4711 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I read through various policies and guidelines numerous times, and I'm not convinced that those I participate in violate any of them. The fact that there's usually at least a few other keeps in the ones I participate in, suggests that others agree. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As stated, I support at notable sketches article. But I think an article for each is overkill, and I don't really believe we can put enough truly encyclopedic material in them... I too would love all information to be freely available, but not all of it should be here, just the encyclopedia stuff :-) Lundse 15:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But we are in a position to do more than what any other encyclopedia can! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. But that does not mean we should :-) But maybe the wikimedia foundation in general should? All I am saying is, lets not put it under an "encyclopedia" title when it is not encyclopedic, lets move stuff like this to humorpedia or whatever pops up and is appropriate. That said, I do believe we should have more "weird" stuff then a paper encyclopedia, as per policy - this is just going to far in my opinion. Lundse 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike every other tv show, MP info seems to be organized by sketch. This is a problem since many sketches are not, obviously, notable. Why not reorganize and write articles for each episode? Minor sketches can then be listed with brief detail, and notability of each episode is not in question. The most important sketches (like Dead Parrot) can be summarized in an episode page and may also have their own article. I'm rather surprised there's not a summary of each episode; this would just require expansion of List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. This may not be the right place to discuss such an organizational change, but if we were to do so I would !vote to simply merge this article into its episode. bikeable (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just as with sketches, it is not appropriate to include mere plot summaries for episodes, per WP:EPISODE. Such detail articles should only be included if there is sufficient secondary coverage for the individual episode or sketch, allowing to expand the article beyond a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or, better, Move or Redirect to a notable sketches page as per Lundse. It is a notable sketch. But that is hard point to prove. Marcus22 18:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is established by the existence of reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. Otto4711 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I fully accept that that is how notability is established here. Hence why I said it is a hard point to prove. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that this is a notable sketch. Marcus22 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but preferably merge into a Notable Monty Python sketches article. -- The Anome 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge I think that's notable, and it's part of a famous British comedy, mabey merge it. It's not that useless. Yamakiri on Firefox 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And the sources that back up your claim of notability for the individual sketch are...? Otto4711 23:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not merge Does not have secondary sources to establish notability. Merging into Notable Monty Python sketches is a bad idea because it will be a list with an ill-defined scope. That article will either be a list subjectively defining "notable" and there's no real way to determine what's in or out, or it will be based on WP:N and be a collection of sketches that have Wikipedia articles, which would be better served as a category and wouldn't save an article from deletion. Jay32183 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Once again, this is a very funny sketch (I know people who shout "albatross" at all kinds of occasions, which probably says more about me than anything else...), but there's no evidence of independent notability outside of the show. The sources as provided in the article aren't substantially about the sketch, and a great many of the arguments in favour of keeping the article here are themselves Pythonesque. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't the use in popular culture allow the use of Ignore all rules in this case? I also have been privy to "Albatross?" (or is it "Albatross!") being shouted in public, and until reading the article I didn't know what it was all about (I had to go to youtube to watch the sketch) BTW, I am not invoking WP:ILIKEIT - Fosnez 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To me, ignoring verifiability in favor of "use in popular culture" seems highly questionable in an encyclopedia. --B. Wolterding 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI think we can all verify that this exists, but can't use you youtube as a source. Popular culture references are already common on wikipedia and also many paper encyclopedias Fosnez 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Its existence is not the only thing that needs to be verified, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Also, a good deal of the pop culture articles are being deleted, which weakens the already bad argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jay32183 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There isn't significant coverage. Simply mentioning something isn't sufficient to establish notability. Jay32183 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good examples for trivial coverage. The second one mentions the sketch in one word, the first one in one paragraph - which is a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 18:36, 12 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.