Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit of Caerbannog

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. The article was very significantly improved from May 4 on, which is why the earlier "delete" or "redirect" opinions would seem to no longer apply. Incidentally, AfDs should not be used to propose redirects, only deletions. Sandstein (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbit of Caerbannog

Rabbit of Caerbannog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A minor plot device in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The lead is actually just about all that can be said on the subject, the rest is a repeat of a section of plot summary from the main article plus a bit of trivia that largely reads as novel synthesis. Time for a redirect, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, agreed, there's little point in a standalone article except as a fancruft accumulation device. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, as has already been done with the Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh. I highly doubt there are any reliable sources documenting this particular character specifically. I wish I were recommending deletion so I could say "Delete with a hand grenade" or "One, two, five... delete!" or something... AnturiaethwrTalk 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, perhaps we could scare the rabbit so it would make the "mistake" of going into the other article? Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable topic which has not received significant coverage from secondary sources. Article is only plot summary and a list of appearances. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail; does not seem to have gotten notability independent from the film, despite spawning very well-known catch-phrases, but it is a plausible search term (as I know because I once used it myself) and part of the movies's appeal/popularity. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing to keep based on improvements made. Not all the sources adequitely demonstrate notablity, but enough do to make it a keeper. Good rescue, guys. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, NN on it's own. And there was much rejoicing. 18:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it's always the same. I always tell them... Do they listen to me? Oh, no... and so I'm adding some sources to demonstrate the undoubted notability of this fearsome beast. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Later I have added 8 references which seems enough for today. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Added references now demonstrate notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy and one remains unmoved by the dilatory "references" added. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? The article's structure has been developed and another 8 citations have been added. What more do we need to make this a featured article? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This looks like straw-clutching. Lots of the added material has an utterly speculative link to the film, and is of seriously dubious notability as well. I applaud your effort to expand the article beyond a list of pop culture references, but the "why?" factor is still pretty high. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that most of the sources don't look that useful for demonstrating notability. There are 19 listed right now, of which twelve most definitely do not involve significant coverage of this particular rabbit (several have only passing mentions of the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, which is related in name only; a few are just plain unrelated, like the book on Apple Computers). I'm a tad iffy about the rest, but since I can't access them I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they aren't definitely irrelevant. Long story short: the sources don't convince me, but they sort of come close. I still recommend a merge, but keeping the article won't disgust me. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have accessed all these sources in the course of editing the article and they support the relevant points made. The Apple book, for example, says "AppleShare 3.0 was code-named Killer Rabbit, after the blood-sucking character in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail.". This detail properly appears in the section which explains how this character had a widespread impact. The only aspect which was not initially clear was whether the Jimmy Carter references were an attribution and so I have cited a source which makes it clear that they were. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I see your point; those sources have more value than I originally thought. (I thought they were being added to establish notability, not to back up specific claims; the relevant pages tend to be restricted, so I couldn't see anything about the rabbit.) Nonetheless, I still don't think they establish notability apart from the movie, as none of them (including the three added since I last responded) are about the rabbit per se. I think we're dealing with a difference of opinion about depth of coverage: at what point does a large amount of trivial coverage indicate notability in the same way that substantial coverage does? I think we may be nearing that threshold, but I'm not convinced we've crossed it; you're apparently of the opinion that we have. Both positions seem fairly reasonable, so I'm not going to get too invested in defending mine. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the sources are specifically about the rabbit. The volume of other references indicate that the rabbit is not merely notable; it is famous. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep due to active efforts to improve the article concerning a topic associated with a notable comedy group. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, that's associated with in the sense of one joke used once in one film. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The attributions in other media, merchandising, and popularity of the "character" suggest that it has established sufficient individual notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The rabbit has made more than one appearance. In particular, it appears in the Spamalot musical. I have not seen this yet and do not want to research it closely as it will spoil it for me. The character is therefore bigger than the single movie and so a merger would be inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a fairly ludicrous premise. Spamalot is evidently a derivative of Holy Grail rather than an independent entity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Matter of Britain has spawned endless variations over the centuries and will continue to do so. We have many articles upon these and this is a Good Thing as it is of great scholarly interest. Since Spamalot is a separate and distinct work from the movie, we have a separate article for this too. The rabbit appears as a distinct character in these and many other derivative works, as the article explains. It has established its place in Arthurian myth and is, it seems, more famous than lesser knights such as Bors who also have separate articles. Notice that the Bors article has no sources while the rabbit is at 22 and counting. The argument for deletion doesn't have a leg to stand on, but like the Black Knight, will not lie down - now that's ludicrous. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The citations and searching demonstrate that it's harder to find a review of the film or musical that omits mention of the "killer rabbit" sequence than the reverse, and there are plentiful indicators that it's e.g. a "famous set-piece" in the context of the film, and may be nearly the only thing some people recall. This more than satisfies WP:FICT.--Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I came here expecting to post delete as an unnotable, but the amount of citations and content written on the article is actually decent enough to merit an article. — Κaiba 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably one of the most famous rabbits there are. This article has 23 references. It was voted Britain's best movie rabbit. --Pixelface (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, will never become a proper encyclopedic article, nor even a proper stub. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:45, May 8, 2008
What? I honestly wonder if people actually look at articles up for deletion sometimes.. This article has 20+ references and isn't even marked as a stub. How can you claim that it will never be a proper stub (or article) when it is already past stub quality? — Κaiba 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Multiple reliable sources found. Nice job Colonel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:55, 9 May 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.