Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiots of ants

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 delete. Pigman☿ 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiots of ants

Idiots of ants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete NN comedy group Mayalld (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Dear Sir/Madam,

I wrote this page after finding Pappy's fun Club ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappy%27s_Fun_Club ) ,another UK sketch group at a similiar level, but not finding an Idiots of Ants page. Both are up and coming acts so it seems strange that Pappy's Fun Club would be OK and Idiots of Ants not. I am a fan so was extra careful not to publicise them in any way. But if I did I will remove it.

Kind Regards,

Cody

  • comment will nominate that for deletion as well Mayalld (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per failing notability standards. Occurance of another article has added to this debate. Unfortunately (to creating user), it looks like both will be deleted. — Rudget contributions 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not as notable as Pappy's Fun Club and there is definitely a conflict of interest here. Deb (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that both these groups are ‘notably’ if not yet famous. At the Edinburgh Festival they were both big news selling out there venues every night. This means over 5000 people saw them. Add to that the gigs they have done in London and around the UK it must be over 10,000. Certainly not ‘Monty Python’ but a great start none the less.

On top of this both groups have been reviewed and written about in the national press (only yesterday did I see Idiots of Ants the Metro Newspaper) and have both been and national Television and radio.

They both have big internet followings (me amongst them) and think they would be a popular addition to Wikipedia

~~Cody~~

Cody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codspy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


  • comment I am the author of the article and have made it a British Comedy stub. I hope this will help to improve its acceptability. Many of the other comedians on that list are of a similar level of notability and it would seem unfair to delete this article when the others have been accepted and read for some time.

Thanks again,

Codspy (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I entered Idiots of Ants into wikipedia having booked tickets to see them at their Pleasance gig in London at Christmas after having lapped them up at Edinburgh. We bought the tickets the day after seeing them on BBC2's Culture Show. Yet I find that they are nominated for deletion on here?! I cannot understand that. Who decides whether something has a right to be deleted? There are countless examples on Wikipedia of far less notable/successful/famous people/groups/events than the Idiots. Surely that is not the purpose of the volunteer editors on the site? To be arbiters of what is well-known or not? I consider myself cultured and well-read, but I wouldn't dream of stating what was worthy of public consumption on wikipedia on the basis of whether it had entered my sphere of experience or where it rated on my perceived 'fame-o-meter'.

They are a comedy group in the public eye that are known by and have entertained as many people as many of the books, for example, that appear on this site. Those books claim their space, I assume, on the grounds that you could go into any bookstore and pick them up IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR THEM. The same argument exists to defend the Idiots of Ants. If you were looking to see them, you could find them, and the first place you should be able to look is here.

The nomination for deletion is extraordinary and should be removed.

Jessica McIntyne.


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.