Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sit on My Face

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 Mr.Z-man 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sit on My Face

Sit on My Face (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - prod disputed based on the "iconic" status of Monty Python. WHile the Pythons are indeed highly notable, that notability is not inherited by every single thing they've ever done. The song does not appear to have been the substantial subject of reliable sources and thus is not independently notable. It also fails the proposed notability guideline for songs as it did not chart. Otto4711 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:N Shruti14 (^T/C\^S/M) 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This nomination is concurrent with the nomination of four other Monty Python-related articles:
  • Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election
  • Medical Love Song
  • Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism
  • Silly Job Interview
• I shall voice my opinion on the nomination later, suffice now to mention it was I who removed the prod. __meco 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough to pass the bar. It was mentioned as a 'rousing anthem' in the Washington Post, and an 'obvious fan favorite' in the San Francisco Chronicle. The Seattle Times referred to it as a 'familiar' Python skit and PopMatters referred to it as a "Python Classic". It was featured in the Concert for George as one of Harrison's favorites. While I agree we should be careful to take the canon of a notable artist on a case-by-case basis, I think this one can stay. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - merely being mentioned in a review of a show or being noted in an interview does not constitute coverage that is substnatially about the song, which is the standard. They also performed Sit on My Face or George Harrison really liked it and the like are not instances of substantial coverage of the topic. Otto4711 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment These quotes are from reliable sources that attest to the song's notability, not by virtue of "in-depth" coverage, but rather the choice of language in their description. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you show me where at WP:N or WP:MUSIC it says that passing mentions establish notability based on the words used in the passing reference? Otto4711 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Eliz81. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The legal threats by the estate of Gracie Fields to have it removed from the album makes it notable. Dbromage [Talk] 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no mention in the article of these supposed threats. Otto4711 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's mentioned in Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album where the song first appeared. The article can be cleaned up and referenced. Dbromage [Talk] 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The song is apparently banned on US radio and the FCC has fined at least one station for playing it.[1][2] Dbromage [Talk] 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• And more coverage that the FCC finds the song to be indecent.[3][4] Dbromage [Talk] 02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also cited in Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands & Censored Songs by Peter Blecha.[5] Dbromage [Talk] 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable artist and well known song. Considering it was originally released over 25 years ago it's still reasonably well known as attested to by the sources, written in the last 5. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All four links posted above only give 1 line, trivial coverage of this. This does not constitute as significant coverage Corpx 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I do not think it is the intent of the "non-trivial coverage" requirement that a source must be entirely about the subject in order to qualify. Rather, the requirement provides a way of gauging whether there is enough material to write an article. I think that the sources about the FCC's reaction, the various reviews, and an issue regarding the French translation of the song noted in this article in The Guardian are enough to justify erring on the side of inclusion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:36, 30 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.