Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bells (Blackadder) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Canley (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bells (Blackadder)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Bells (Blackadder) Articles for deletion/Bells (Blackadder) (2nd nomination)
Bells (Blackadder) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article still fails WP:N by not incorporating non-trivial real world information as described in WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE. For some reason, a mention of tea and a very trivial reference by a member of the British Parliament saved it in the last AfD, but neither of those is enough to even assert notability. The part about the tea can always be merged if necessary. TTN (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep because of the real world information in the article, pointed out by the nominator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Can you please point out how those meet the criteria of significant coverage? TTN (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No real world notability is asserted. This does not deserve an individual article per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RANorton. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: 1. Notable episode of a notable series, and to my knowledge Wikipedia has not yet banned individual episode articles, otherwise there are hundreds of articles on episodes that will need to go to AFD and 2. A previous AFD resulted in a Keep decision on Nov. 29 2007, not even 6 weeks ago and I will not support the creation of precedent that articles may be repeatedly nominated until someone gets the desired result. 23skidoo (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments on previous nomination. I also strongly agree with the above regarding a second nomination in 6 weeks. TTN keeps saying that Wikipedia policy backs him, but then when a AfD concludes keep, just because he disagrees he nominates it again. There is indeed a dangerous precedent here. --UpDown (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep article meets core policies. Catchpole (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Repeated nominations of articles until the 'right' answer is forthcoming are tiresome. Nick mallory (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the nom. Meets the "real world" notability (a ref I myself added on the last AFD nom). Why nominate this episode and not all the other Blackadder episodes? In a worst case scenerio, this should be redirected to List of Blackadder episodes, but it's notable enough to survive the AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Interestingly, the episode as listed as a reference in this textbook, as seen in an Amazon.com preview. However, I can't actually view the page on which the episode is discussed. Zagalejo^^^ 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per all above and my comments at the previous AFD. I see no reason for this to be nominated so soon again after the previous failed AFD. Haven't you got something better to do, TTN? I very rarely comment on contributors, but to be honest I'm getting quite bored with this editor's actions on this encyclopedia; his poor nominations, ceaseless clinging to a disputed guideline which appears to have very little ground level support (WP:EPISODE) and failure to listen to the opinions of other contributors. Bob talk 10:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article violates WP:NOT#PLOT because it is almost entirely a plot summary. What little real-world context can be incorporated into the main article. I looked at the mention of this episode in the government document, however it is very trivial and isn't used to support any statements about the episode. --Farix (Talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to List of Blackadder episodes, fails WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE with no real world notability and nothing but plot summary. Episode already has a summary on the List of Blackadder episodes and the plot "summary" given in the article is not suitable for merging. Collectonian (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: WP:FICT does not apply -- this is a real episode of demonstratable existance, not a fictive object. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    It is an episode of a fictional sitcom. Yes, FICT does apply. Collectonian (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Not all episodes of every TV series rate an article, but I feel this one does. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment What makes Blackadder episodes special next to episodes of any other television series? I see lots of reasons according to policy and guidelines as to why this article should not exist, but no policy or guideline based reason as to why it should be kept. So far, all of the keep comments have been to either disparadge the nominator or are the equivelent of WP:ILIKEIT. And policy based arguements always trumps WP:ILIKEIT. But there has been no proof presented as to how this episode, or any other Blackadder episode article, passes any of the notability criteria. Notability requires objective evidence, but so far, no such evidence has been presented. --Farix (Talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Cunning: The Blackadder Programme Guide By Chris Howarth, Steve Lyons" ISBN 0753504472
    "Blackadder: The Whole Damn Dynasty, 1485-1917 By Richard Curtis, Rowan Atkinson, Ben Elton" ISBN 0140296085 Callmederek (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki info and Delete as presently given - notability requires "significant coverage" and the factoid about the episode being given away with tea is not "significant". That said, I would think that there is some better source for real world notability about the episode's development through commentary or the like (the set's on DVD, though I can't recall if it has such); if such can be found, reinstate article with it. --MASEM 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do have to say that most of the people voting keep would probably not be voting keep if I wasn't the nominator or if this wasn't Blackadder/a British television show. If this were about an episode of Friends given away with a pack of hot dogs, and a congressman referenced it in something to do with obesity, I doubt many would be voting keep. TTN (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. You might like to read the following - Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. Catchpole (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and whack TTN with multiple trouts for being so disruptive. Tim! (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Here is a very good example of my last comment. This user both hates me, and has a very strong bias towards British television shows. I doubt he would even consider commenting on my silly example up above. TTN (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    You are "disruptive" for nominating the same article twice within two months.--UpDown (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    I am not sure why TTN is trying to inflame this with talk of "hate", maybe an octopus is needed as a the trout is not working? Tim! (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    One month is an ample amount of time to improve an article. Seeing as there was absolutely no push to even edit the article (two edits since the close of the last nomination by an anon), I fail to see how it is disruptive. TTN (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    There is no deadline etc etc. Tim! (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    It is also fine "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." TTN (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Getting rid of it, or even redirecting it, makes it harder, if not impossible for anyone to edit it to improve it. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Seeing as it's going to take a push from an experienced editor to establish notability, I'm pretty sure they'll be able to handle it if they find actual sources. TTN (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given by Richard Arthur Norton and Tim! Callmederek (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge into an episode list) - no proper evidence of real-world notability. I don't always agree with TTN, but it seems to me he's entirely right on this one. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article contains no significant Notability arguments. I note that the only edits since the close of the previous AfD were to add more tags and templates, and a partial transcript. That's hardly the sort of improvement that should help an article. I note that a large number of the arguments here constitute 'I like it' or 'i don't like TTN' reasons. ThuranX (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I am also aware of books on Rowan Atkinson/Blackadder which a quick search with google will highlight in a few seconds, as well as newspaper articles etc. I don't own said books nor am I likely to go and buy them but there is enough for me to know 3rd party sourcing is out there. Wow here's a radical thought - if someone on this AfD actually had some of these books or borrowed them from a library....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a MORE radical thought. Instead of leaving hostily, immature, snarky rejoinders, why don't you crack open some of those books, and use them to improve the article? It's not my job to fix YOUR favorite article. I'm commenting on the AfD. If you feel the need to get so snarky with a commenter, I feel the need to thoroughly ignore you. ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, now no need for caps lock is there? It's not my favourite article, and it would be on a long queue behind other stuff. Given real-life commitments, 2 months is a fairly short time to hold an article to ransom. Anyway, let's keep it from getting personal eh? I've been adding plenty of sources to articles in the RPG field and urged others to do the same. Not that comments like yours make me jump up and think, 'Gee, I must go to the library to spend some of my free time doing what I was ordered to go and do.' 2 months is short compared to many core articles which have been unsourced for years, to put it in perspective. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per 23skidoo and UpDown and Tim!. --Nikolaj Winther (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the first episode of an extremely popular sitcom. It has some references that hint toward notability and has enormous potential due to DVD commentary and the like. Ursasapien (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — This is mostly WP:PLOT and does nothing to establish notability. --Jack Merridew 10:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    I so love it when people voting delete pretend not to know the extent of the popualrity (and hence notability) of some of these articles listed. OK, individual D&D modules maybe but this is a famous TV show which had few (i.e. quality rather than quantity) episodes cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    popularity != notability — And please note that I am pretending no such thing; I've never heard of this show. Please check your systemic bias at the door. --Jack Merridew 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    I am amazed you'd choose to speak so authoritatively on a topic you claim to know nothing about then. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    (prior to reviewing the article per the AfD. Can you hear me now? --Jack Merridew 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
    Very funny. So how exactly is nominating this so quickly after the last (a) collaborative or (b) following consensus - as per that segment you just highlighted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Please see above; I didn't nominate this; I didn't participate in the last AfD (note, again, my comment that I have never heard of this before); and the article is unencyclopaedic in its current form, i.e. not notable. And, please, indent after bullets properly: an asterisk followed by colons. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - very notable first episode of a now classic BBC comedy series, repeatedly aired worldwide on BBC Prime. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

*Redirect & merge to List of Blackadder episodes. Much as I am a Blackadder fan, trying not to be WP:POV, its real-world significance seems somewhat strained to me. The claims for notability seem to be ideal candidates for footnotes to the list; of interest but do not make the episode significant in itself. We have an example in List of Fawlty Towers episodes for this kind of situation- some are notable enough to sustain their own articles, and some are not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite per Callmederek. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as mentioned, will be sourceable. the public for some reason considers this a very notable series--I don't have to agree, but it's the public reception that matters. DGG (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant episode of series with quite some staying power. This demand for "real world references" seems to be getting disruptive rather than helpful. Dimadick (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, failing the Wikipedia requirement for notability. Obviously, do not salt for the availability of future editors who have such evidence. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I really do thing the keeps have lost sight of the forest (the series) do to the tree (the episodes). Just because the series is notable doesn't mean that the episodes are notable as well. Notability isn't inherited nor is it based on popularity. --Farix (Talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    I understand full well that series notability does not equate episode notability and I also understand that summary style would lead to a list of episode article rather than individual episode articles. However, this is the first episode of a notable series, introducing many motifs that were used in subsequent Blackadder series. Between the DVD and the books available, it has great potential to further establish notability. Editors have already put in the effort to find some references to this specific episode. Ursasapien (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Just because it is the first episode doesn't make the episode notable in and of itself. For an example of an episode who's notability is independent of the series is "Electric Soldier Porygon" from the Pokémon series. --Farix (Talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Notable episode of notable show, whether the current version displays it to the degree that some editors demand is debatable, I've written one article about an historical event that only one book ever has been written on the subject - with one reference in JSTOR - this episode, whether I like it or not, is more notable than the the article in question.--Alf melmac 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the many reasons articulated above, and because nominating an article for deletion, merely six weeks after a previous AFD nomination was closed with a unanimous consensus favoring retention, without offering any new arguments for deletion, is inappropriate. The renomination of the article not only on the same basis, but also by the same editor, in a short period of time, is downright disruptive. TTN should not be permitted to seek the deletion of this article through repeated AFD nominations on identical grounds. John254 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep its notability was established six weeks ago in the previous AFD. Will (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep TTN had his answer the first time round. Astronaut (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2008 (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.