Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Obvious (Monty Python character)

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 no consensus. BJ^Talk 09:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Obvious (Monty Python character)

I don't think that this article is notable, or that the sketch is any more remarkable than the hundreds of others. PROD removed without rationale. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 11:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination says "I don't think" but this is contrary to the proper deliberation required by our deletion policy. By following this policy, I was soon able to find a reliable source for this character which demonstrates notability. More is required but this is just normal improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much as I hate to say "as per"...as per Colonel Warden. While not perfect, it can certainly be improved to a reasonable status, maybe even GA if enough effort is put in. Cheers. I'^mperator 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, rename to Ron Obvious (Monty Python). Precedent is that Monty Python stuff is named for the sketch, not the character; cf Category:Monty Python sketches. To cut down on repetition I'd ask the nominator if he wouldn't mind withdrawing his individual Monty Python nominations and, if he feels there might be a consensus for deletion, discuss what to do with the whole category in a single, coherent AfD/XfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to do a combined AfD, actually, but a previous one (WP:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches if memory serves) had several users asking for individual nominations, so I went for that approach instead. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No assertion of notability. No external sources. LK (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites the Monty Python encyclopedia which is an external source which establishes notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no sources which demonstrate notability, nor any content which gives us any reason that this character/sketch is important enough for an article. Looking at our fiction guidelines, delete is the appropriate choice. JRP (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outright deletion isn't really an option. There's established consensus that plausible search terms should not be redlinks, and Monty Python sketches are certainly plausible search terms; so redirect is the most extreme outcome consistent with convention; see also WP:ATD.—I've got a lot more to say about this, because I think the notability policy is yet again being fundamentally misapplied here. But that's properly the subject of a userspace essay rather than a reply here; I'll work on that essay tonight. For the moment, suffice it to say, merge to List of Monty Python Sketches.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the essay, although I should imagine I'm wasting my time with this AfD now.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. enough sources can be found. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly some individual comedy sketches meet the general notability guidelines, but this isn't one of them. - Chardish (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No evidence is presented that this character established any degree of popular culture resonance that equals better-known Python creations. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*merge to episodes he apears in. rdunn PLIB 10:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or alternatively Merge to List of recurring characters in Monty Python's Flying Circus. - jc37 08:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above rdunn PLIB 10:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (we all need a laugh) and add a paragraph in the List above, too. -MBHiii (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Monty Python folks created lots of sketches; not all of them are worth an article. As Chardish & Pastor Theo point out above, there's nothing here that explains why this should be one with an article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.