120:- expired prod removed by editor on the grounds that, while s/he acknowledges that the grounds for the prod were valid (that the sketch is not independently notable) she believes the prod was "arbitrary." Given that even the de-prodder acknowledges that the sketch is not independently notable and given that it also, as a plot summary of the sketch, fails
248:
The first source is written by the
Pythons and so is not independent. It also apparently simply a transcript of the sketch collected in book form. The second source is not about the sketch itself; it is about the Pythons' feelings about punch lines. Neither source comes remotely close to establishing
266:
It is hard to see what you are driving at. This sketch has become a staple of popular culture, so there's very little doubt about its notability. Are you claiming that a single short work out of a very large body of short works must have independent publications about it before it can be treated as
141:
but really the segue pieces. I am therefore removing the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that
Knowledge (XXG) provides an excellent repository for showcasing Monty Python skits. There are after all 100s of Monty Python Skits and only a handful that have been made into
155:
The reason that only a handful of sketches have been made into articles is because very few of them are independently notable. Indeed, a couple dozen or so similar articles have been deleted over the last few weeks for said lack of independent notability.
137:- While its true that this skit and several others can not be absolutely defined as notable, I would argue that was actually the nature of Monty Python. Some of the funniest bits of that show were not the sketches which are commonly known, such as
297:
If someone wants to think that items of popular culture with decades worth of worldwide following, multiple reissues in various formats and languages are not notable, it's best just to let them keep thinking it.
361:. A collection of sketch transcripts written by the Pythons is not an independent reliable source. An interview segment about the Python philospohy on punchlines is not substantially about the sketch.
110:
142:
articles in
Knowledge (XXG). I would also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--
172:. This sketch is independently notable. Much more notable than many/most of the albums by minor artists that appear here. Still notable decades after it was performed.
390:
Do you have an actual reason for wanting the article kept that refutes the nomination or are you limited to name-calling and assumptions of bad faith?
83:
78:
17:
87:
70:
235:
I just added two sources. There are more, but IMHO they are hardly needed for such a notable work of such a notable group.
425:
36:
406:
per common sense and common knowledge. "The trolls will eat, the trolls will bleat, even if nobody feeds them."
424:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
284:
to the sketch's being "a staple of popular culture" would be a good place to start. Do you have any of those?
410:
394:
381:
365:
348:
315:
302:
288:
271:
257:
239:
230:
217:
201:
176:
160:
146:
128:
52:
337:
I have no personal views on these sketches, but since there are sources there is no basis for deletion.
267:
notable? What about dozens of reprints, reissues, mentions in commentaries on the body of work, etc.?
138:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
121:
194:
299:
268:
236:
173:
186:
66:
58:
190:
391:
378:
362:
357:
Oh please. You know as well as I that the standard is not "sources." The standard is
344:
312:
285:
254:
227:
198:
157:
143:
125:
214:
49:
104:
407:
339:
189:
that are substantially about the sketch that you believe establish the
359:
independent reliable sources that are substnatially about the subject
418:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
197:
does not serve to establish the notability of this sketch.
193:
of this specific sketch. Popularity is not notability.
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
226:Easy to say. Where are the sources to back it up?
428:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
124:, this seems like a pretty obvious delete.
213:it is notable, it may need improved. --
253:is in any way independently notable.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
280:Independent reliable sources that
24:
311:So that would be a "no," then?
195:The existence of other articles
411:02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
395:01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
382:17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
366:04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
349:23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
316:22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
303:22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
289:21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
272:21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
258:21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
240:20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
231:18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
218:17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
202:11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
177:01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
161:22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
147:20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
129:20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
53:01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
185:Please cite the independent
445:
421:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
377:Don't feed the trolls.
251:this individual sketch
436:
423:
187:reliable sources
108:
90:
34:
444:
443:
439:
438:
437:
435:
434:
433:
432:
426:deletion review
419:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
442:
440:
431:
430:
414:
413:
400:
399:
398:
397:
385:
384:
371:
370:
369:
368:
352:
351:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
306:
305:
292:
291:
275:
274:
261:
260:
243:
242:
233:
221:
220:
207:
206:
205:
204:
180:
179:
166:
165:
164:
163:
150:
149:
115:
114:
67:The Dirty Fork
61:
59:The Dirty Fork
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
441:
429:
427:
422:
416:
415:
412:
409:
405:
402:
401:
396:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
383:
380:
376:
373:
372:
367:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
346:
342:
341:
336:
333:
332:
317:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
276:
273:
270:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
256:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
241:
238:
234:
232:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
208:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
167:
162:
159:
154:
153:
152:
151:
148:
145:
140:
136:
133:
132:
131:
130:
127:
123:
119:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
420:
417:
403:
374:
358:
338:
334:
281:
250:
210:
169:
134:
117:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
300:Lou Sander
269:Lou Sander
237:Lou Sander
191:notability
174:Lou Sander
392:Otto4711
379:Good Cop
363:Otto4711
313:Otto4711
286:Otto4711
255:Otto4711
228:Otto4711
199:Otto4711
158:Otto4711
144:10stone5
126:Otto4711
111:View log
215:Buridan
122:WP:PLOT
84:protect
79:history
50:John254
408:Cleome
282:attest
118:Delete
88:delete
249:that
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
404:Keep
375:Keep
345:talk
335:Keep
211:Keep
170:Keep
139:Spam
135:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
340:DGG
109:– (
347:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
343:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.