Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dirty Fork

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 keep. John254 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dirty Fork

The Dirty Fork (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - 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 WP:PLOT, this seems like a pretty obvious delete. Otto4711 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - 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 Spam but really the segue pieces. I am therefore removing the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that Wikipedia 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 articles in Wikipedia. I would also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--10stone5 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 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. Otto4711 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. 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. Lou Sander 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it is notable, it may need improved. --Buridan 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Easy to say. Where are the sources to back it up? Otto4711 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I just added two sources. There are more, but IMHO they are hardly needed for such a notable work of such a notable group. Lou Sander 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 that this individual sketch is in any way independently notable. Otto4711 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 notable? What about dozens of reprints, reissues, mentions in commentaries on the body of work, etc.? Lou Sander 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Independent reliable sources that attest to the sketch's being "a staple of popular culture" would be a good place to start. Do you have any of those? Otto4711 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 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. Lou Sander 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So that would be a "no," then? Otto4711 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no personal views on these sketches, but since there are sources there is no basis for deletion.DGG (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please. You know as well as I that the standard is not "sources." The standard is independent reliable sources that are substnatially about the subject. 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. Otto4711 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't feed the trolls. Good Cop 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 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? Otto4711 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per common sense and common knowledge. "The trolls will eat, the trolls will bleat, even if nobody feeds them." Cleome 02:39, 26 September 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.