Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects Sketch

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 No consensus. Bduke 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architects Sketch

Architects Sketch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - prod removed by anon stating "Monty Python sketches are notable!" Well no, they're not inherently notable. In addition to notability issues this article is a clear violation of WP:PLOT, being nothing but a description of the sketch. Otto4711 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A simple reference or citation doesn't constitute a reliable source attesting to the notability of the specific sketch. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Among the most well-known of the group's sketches; certainly better known than many of the individual articles on episodes of lesser-known television series. Clean up and retain. Kablammo 09:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How well-known the sketch may be is not relevant. How well-known it is in comparison to other articles is not relevant. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What is relevant is notability. With over a thousand web references, from the usual fan sites (numerous), to cultural references ([2]) , to the serious (e.g., [3], [4]) the sketch has achieved a certain degree of notability. Kablammo 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your first "source" appears to be a biographical article, or "sketch," about an actual architect. It does not appear to have anything to do with the Python routine and it is also at a subscription site and so is not suited for use as a source here anyway. Your second "source" is about software architecture and merely quotes a line. Your third "source" is about Britain's response to the death of Princess Diana and while I did not read every word of it a scan through it did not indicate to me any great level of connection between it and the Python routine. Simply being mentioned in passing or even quoted in a piece that is not substantially about the sketch does not establish the notability of the sketch. Otto4711 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • One point here needs clarification, Otto: links to subscription sites are acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. WP:EL's restriction is about links not used as sources. I recently had to clarify this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Question about sites requiring registration, and the consensus was clear — the notion that links to subscription sites are never acceptable appears to be a widespread error. I don't know whether the Chronicle of Higher Education link is useful for the article or not, but the mere fact that it's subscription-only shouldn't prevent it from being used as a source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The full-text version is cached at Google but adds nothing more. My point in referencing it is to show that the "Architects Sketch" (or "Architect Sketch") has become part of the vernacular; that it is a cultural reference like other well-known comedic sketches; and that even the use of its title on an unrelated essay is a cultural reference known to readers. I understand and respect the arguments and votes for deletion, and I hope that the fact deletion has been proposed will lead to improvement of the article and therefore its retention. The subject is notable but the page needs work. Kablammo 21:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kablammo. I'll make some slight improvements too in the next moment. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. The RT Fielding essay references the sketch in a non-trivial way, and this thesis (.doc file) specifically examines the sketch in translation. These citations (or similar ones) should be incorporated into the article, which does need to provide more cultural context (e.g. discussion of attitudes towards Freemasonry, etc.). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A student's English paper that quotes a few lines from the sketch in an appendix on a half-page out of a 70+ page document? Are you kidding? Is this even published anywhere or did the writer just post it on her website? This is a paper about how well translators do in translating comedy sketches from one language to another and Architects Sketch was picked, not because it is a particularly notable sketch, but because it has a large number of words that might give a translator difficulty. The notion that this somehow establishes the notability of the sketch is ludicrous. It's in all likelihood not a reliable source and it's not "substantially about the subject" of the sketch, as required by WP:N. Otto4711 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't read Czech, but it looks to me as if the thesis was published by the university. That makes it a reliable source in my book. Incidentally, I'm not certain whether this article is referencing this sketch or another one, but if it's the same sketch that could also be a notability-establishing source. —07:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if the thesis has been published, it is still not substantially about the sketch and does not establish the notability of the sketch. El Mystico and Janet is a completely different sketch. Otto4711 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - at the very least the article should be renamed as Architects Sketch (Monty Python sketch) or something to that effect. I thought the problem was going to be that the candidate article constituted nothing more than a dictionary definition of one of the formal processes an Architect might use in bidding on a construction project; or something on those lines. As it stands the article is potentially misleading and unhelpful for someone who might be wanting to know more about Architects and how they prepare their drawings for clients. I think if it can be named correctly and worked into the Monty Python wikiproject for proper upgrades and maintenance, then it could potentially be improved to the point that it could stand alone as a notable MP skit. At present, the improper name is the more critical problem. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say that the critical problem is that the sketch does not have the requisite notability to have its own Wikipedia article. Otto4711 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and WP:PLOT Harlowraman 20:58, 23 August 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.