Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

100% unsourced. This is a mix of WP:PLOT, and WP:OR. My own searching for various character names failed to come up with any WP:RS for them. Lots of ghits, but they're all Monty Python fan sites, wikipedia mirrors, and various other WP:PRIMARY and or WP:UGC sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing has now been added to the article. Thank you to User:Spinningspark for that. I now withdraw this nomination, and return you to getting hit over the head lessons, already in progress. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep There are plenty of reliable sources out there for this material including numerous substantial books of hundreds of pages and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please provide specific sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a pretty typical Andrew tactic, claiming there are sources without actually linking any. He will likely either ignore the above request for specifics, or come back with a list of sources he hasn't read that, if anyone actually checked them, would support the assertion that this topic nothing but OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Searching news results for Morty Python and then each name of a reoccurring character might prove if the things listed are notable. [1] Found brief mention for Nude Organist, but not much. Back when the show was on, where was it reviewed at, and did they mention these characters in reviews? Dream Focus 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or at least redirect to Monty Python's Flying Circus and protect to prevent unilateral recreation The fact that so many of these "characters" don't even have names supports the idea that it is OR to call them recurring characters. Maybe some of them actually are and reliable sources could be found to support that assertion, but the fact that no one has in more than 12 years makes me somewhat skeptical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep ISBN 0814331033 is an entire book on the show Monty Python's Flying Circus, and discusses many of these characters in detail. The current (unsourced) text is atrocious, but AFD is not cleanup. I'll make some removals of content that I can't verify. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination if you can find good sourcing. That book certainly looks promising, but I'm not yet convinced. I looked up one character, the naked organist. All I could find was a passing mention on page 9: "Jones ... also appeared as a hustler, a naked organist, a salesman ..." That's better than what we've got now (i.e. nothing), but it's a far cry from discussing the character in detail. To be fair, I only spot-checked this one. I'll be happy to look at more when you find them. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Monty Python itself is unquestionably notable, and their universe has become so ingrained in popular culture that a list of recurring characters is more than justified on Wikipedia. Much of this discussion has zeroed in on "naked organist". Well, if it shouldn't be on the list then that one could be removed, but that in no way amounts to an argument for deletion. In any case, it does belong. The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus, volume 2 (which is the actual scripts of the show) in snippet view has three hits for "naked organist", three hits for "nude organist" and eight hits for "organist", all on different pages. Bearing in mind that snippet view does not access the entire book, that is more than enough to show that this is a recurring character. User:RoySmith says that all he could find was a passing mention of the character. That is a baffling comment; a Wikipedia page needs in-depth coverage, an entry on a list does not. But even that criticism is unfounded; Something Completely Different: British Television and American Culture discusses the appearance of the character in some detail – in a rather pompous, intellectual way that Monty Python would just love to have ridiculed. The short entry in Monty Python's Flying Circus: An Utterly Complete, Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorized Guide to Possibly All the References tells me a factoid that is not currently in the article, that "naked organist" was filmed in Jersey. I could cite numerous other mentions in RS, but I'll give just one more that shows the character has become a cultural reference; Planningweek: The Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, in which someone suggests that an organist should have performed naked like the Monty Python one a quarter of a century after the programme first aired. SpinningSpark 11:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Keep, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary was (afd spam keep). You have to actually say keep here and list a reason why for it to be counted. Dream Focus 06:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

They did say "keep", and in bold too. "Spam" may not be a policy-based reason for keep, but it is a reason. SpinningSpark 10:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh! I normally just filter out spam so didn't notice the "keep" in there. Dream Focus 14:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: per Spinningspark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldlywise (talk • contribs)
• Keep Spinningspark makes some valid points. Also notable series do often have a separate article for their characters. Dream Focus 05:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It still needs sources. Right now, the article doesn't have any. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be sourced, but maintaining a "delete" position once you know that sources exist is an unconstructive attitude. Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their presence in the article. That's in the notability guidelines at WP:ARTN. There is also WP:PRESERVE in the editing policy, and the deletion policy pointedly does not give absence of citations as a valid reason for deletion. "Spam spam spam" above has as much policy-based rationale as yours. SpinningSpark 15:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to wikilawyer this to death, I'll counter WP:PRESERVE with WP:UNSOURCED, which says, Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. So, since there's no sources in the article, should I go ahead and blank the entire article? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The important word there is may. Just because you can blank something does not mean you should. It would be POINTy to blank something you know full well can be sourced. You've got sources now, so you could SOFIXIT if it's troubling you that much. I won't be wasting effort working on it or risking adding to my deleted edits while people are still trying to get it deleted. SpinningSpark 18:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in fixing it. I think it's total WP:FANCRUFT and doesn't serve any useful purpose. If somebody put in the effort to carefully reference the article, then at least it would be well-sourced fancruft. It doesn't sound like you're willing to put in the effort either. It's one thing to spend a few minutes googling and find some books about the Pythons. In quite another (much harder) thing to carefully go through the article and find backup for each statement. At this point, we're running 5:3 in favor of keeping, so it's unlikely your efforts would be wasted. How long do you think it would take you to finish the referencing job? Would a month be enough time? I'd be willing to withdraw this nomination now, with the proviso that I'll come back and look at the article in a month and if it's still not sourced, I'll re-nominate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be POINTy to blank something you know full well can be sourced. Umm ... no ... there are lots of reasons not to include something other than it not being sourceable. Since most of this stuff is "plot summary" (such as it could be for something like MPFC) it can technically be sourced to the show itself (and believe me, it hurts to say that), so it's a given that that information "can be sourced". I'm frankly shocked to see an admin express such a poor understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work -- you really have to explain how I'm just misinterpreting what you meant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a reasonable response to criticism that a passage is unsourced. If the fundamental problem is something else then raising the sourcing issue is wasting other people's time if one is not going to be swayed no matter what sources are found. SpinningSpark 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

My original objections were that this is unsourced, WP:PLOT, and WP:OR. You have shown that sources exist, and thus this is not unsourcable, so WP:DEL6 and WP:DEL7 don't apply. It's still unsourced, WP:PLOT and WP:OR.

• Keep for reasons stated by power~enwiki. WP:Not paper. No compliance with WP:Before, since it plainly can be sourced; no reason to inflict the wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment, as that is the last preferred method of dealing with articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:7&6=thirteen: I'm not sure what you mean by No compliance with WP:Before, since it plainly can be sourced -- it's obvious that sourcing was not the problem here and had no relevance to the OP's rationale. Implying otherwise is an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence, and when combined with your off-colour reference to state-sanctioned murder it makes your entire comment really ... ugly. Also, per WP:CHEAP, and a series of RFCs that resulted in a clear (near-unanimous, if I recall) consensus that AFD is the correct place to propose "redirecting, not merging, as the content is crap and should not be kept elsewhere", saying that this is the last preferred method of dealing with articles is not even true as a technicality. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

apparently you have either not read, or choose to ignore, the plain words of WP:Before. We will have to agree to disagree on its interpretation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The very first words of the nom are "100% unsourced". It is perfectly reasonable to comment on the noms failure to look for sources when they raised the issue themselves. SpinningSpark 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not. "100% unsourced" is not the same as "Not notable -- I searched for sources and found none". The requirement to do a source search only applies when one feels the topic is not notable, which is not what the nom said. Saying the article is garbage because the topic is not of encyclopedic value, which the existence of sources would not help, and also pointing out that the present article is particularly bad because it seems to consist of nothing but OR, is not the same thing. This "Topic is notable! Keep! You have not read WP:BEFORE!" strawman argument that I see popping up in hundreds of AFDs really needs to stop. "Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

90% of the nom talks about sourcing. PLOT and OR formed the rest, but these are not insuperable problems in an article, and are not of themselves deletion criteria (although TNT might sometimes apply). If the nominator wanted to make a WP:NOT argument, they should have said so and named the category of NOT they felt it came under. Then you might then have got responses to that rather than the sourcing. SpinningSpark 00:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have now thoroughly referenced the page and added out-of-universe influences and references and other real world information to address the WP:PLOT issue. I thank RoySmith for withdrawing the nomination even before that job was half complete. I have also added more spam to the article which it was clearly lacking. SpinningSpark 23:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per latest improvements made to the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2019 (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.