Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film

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 deleted and made into a shrubbery. Er, a redirect. DS 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film

I think it's debatable that we need an article for every character that is in Holy Grail, but this is even worse—an article for a character that isn't in Holy Grail. It's an article devoted to a five-second joke. Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a listing of every joke character in comedic movies Mitaphane _talk 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge This should be merged as trivia in linking article. Does not deserve a single page. scope_creep 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it works... its funny, and relivant to the movie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.44.164 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 November 2006.
• Delete, merge unnecessary, the content is duplicated in the main article and in Spamalot. hateless 02:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As great as Monty Python is, this is very obviously cruft. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sir not appearing in this encyclopedia, for not being a character in a movie, and having no other claim to fame. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A funny part of one of my favourite films of all time, but the very definition of a character who doesn't need his own article for (among other things) not being a character. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. SWAdair 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Deserves a mention but not his own article. JIP | Talk 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. MER-C 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - why merge trivia? -- Whpq 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - per above --Dangherous 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, no need to merge: already mentioned at Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Plot, and that's all he needs. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Redirect to the movie article, where he's mentioned and the picture is there also. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. As a stand-alone article...sir, this article not pinin'! It's passed on! This article is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace, if you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! It is an ex-article! (In other words, I think it should be deleted.)--TheOtherBob 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• The Sensible Party !votes Weak Keep with second choice Merge and Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The Silly Party suggests Redirect to Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Show, the Broadway version. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, would have said delete, but I've a soft spot for Python. Lankiveil 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
• Redirect then use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch upon the offender... Sorry... Redirect to Very silly people, not silly walks SkierRMH 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (who also did not appear in the film) (retired)
• Redirect to film. -- nae'blis 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good start, and in both movie and play. Dark jedi requiem 06:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to movie. - Lex 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is an entire Category:Monty Python and the Holy Grail which current has 20 articles. I think we should respect that body of work and not go cherry-picking individual articles to delete. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is probably responsible for more people not getting laid than any other movie in history, so it's pretty notable. And apparently a number of editors have worked on the articles, enough to make a whole category. So I don't see the harm in keeping it. Also, Ni. Herostratus 14:21, 14 November 2006 (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.