Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Philosophers' Football Match

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. Maxim_(talk) 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Philosophers' Football Match

The Philosophers' Football Match (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - prod removed by anon, stating s/he needs the article for a paper s/he's writing. Unfortunately, the article does not pass notability on its own and the notability of Monty Python is not inherited by the sketch. It also fails WP:PLOT as it is a plot description. The sketch is available for viewing on YouTube and the transcript is available from many sites including this one so our anonymous student will still have access to the information. Otto4711 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While not as famous as the Dead Parrot Sketch, this article still remains far more valuable and worthwhile than the obscure anime fancruft that permeates the wiki-annals. if by nothing else than by virtue of it being produced by Monty Python, by whom it was deemed noteworthy enough to make it onto a compilation DVD, whereas a multitude of other Flying Circus sketchwork did not meet such a standard. hellenica 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The existence of other articles that you don't like does not justify the existence of this article that you do. Otto4711 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because it is a well-organized article, we have a category for Mont Python sketches, the references show that the article is not a hoax, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The best organized article in all of Wikipedia still needs to meet all relevant policies and guidelines and this article fails several. The existence of a category for Monty Python sketches does not mean that every Monty Python sketch is independently notable. "Not a hoax" is not the standard for keeping articles. You have made all of these arguments previously many times and many times you have been advised on the lack of merit of them. Your continued insistence on making them forces me to question why you keep making them. Otto4711 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You just haven't persuaded me that my arguments are weak, that's why. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• One would think the number of articles that have been deleted despite your belief in their well-organizedness and not-a-hoaxitude would serve as clues to the weakness of the arguments. "How could the Titanic have possibly sunk? The deck chairs are arranged so beautifully!" Otto4711 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On the reverse of course is that a good deal of articles I thought should be kept also have been kept and consider for example in this discussion that the only other post beside you or I is a "keep" as well. Oh, by the way, I posted a reference of a new book on your talk page that I thought may be of interest to you. If you are interested in those kinds of topics, I have a couple other suggestions that you may like. Let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As with the overwhelming majority of Python sketches, the only thing that seems to be notable about this one is that it was performed by Messrs Cleese, Palin, Chapman et al. That means, in other words, that there's no coverage I can find out there exlusively about this sketch. As Otto argued above, the article is very attractively written and patently not a hoax (I'm a die-hard Python fan and can vouch for its truthfulness), but that doesn't make it notable, which is the threshold operating here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep clearly notable, beyond a doubt. There are at least 3 published academic articles dealing with this sketch. The nominator seems to be confusing the process for cleanup with the process for deletion, as his position is that 'it needs more to make it fit' not that it will never fit. --Buridan 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And which criterion for speedy keep does this match? For that matter, where are these articles? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep this sketch often gets mentioned to/discussed by philosophy undergrad students. I think that suggests notability requirements are met. I know that the article gets read and is found a useful intro. Anarchia 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Inclusion in a book^[1] satisfies my threshold for notability. Or perhaps in Monty Python's case, notariety. RussNelson 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And which criterion for speedy keep does this match? Additionally, the link you've provided simply points out that there are books written by a particular individual, one of which is about Python and philosophy. It doesn't show that this sketch is mentioned in the book. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

it meets nominator does not want to delete, cause he seems to want it to be improved by his statements--Buridan 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that at all from Otto's comments. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

he provides no evidence that it is not notable, which is the basis of his nomination. he says there is no inheritance, which seems to me to be false. and it fails wp:plot, which is his only real critique that i can see, and that can be resolved with cleanup.--Buridan 13:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that notability is not inherited is a pretty common one to make. You're welcome to argue against that idea, but I wouldn't go saying that it invalidates Otto's argument without a reasoned explanation of why. He also indicates that it doesn't seem to have any independent notability, which is hardly evidence that he wants it cleaned up. It is, rather, evidence that there aren't any reliable third-party sources predominantly about the sketch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - humorous work that is very well-known to philosophy students and the like. Does need some sources though... see if I can dig some up. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ Monty Python and Philosophy

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.