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 merge the content into another article, perhaps a new one titled Monty Python sketches. The general consensus here is that whether or not all of the sketches meet the general notability requirement for having it's own article, the larger issue at hand here is readability and style. Having 30 very short articles is not as good as merging the content into one or a few comprehensive articles on the topic. There's no clear consensus here as to whether it should be the former or the latter, some here feel that one article would be fine, others feel the article might get a bit long and dividing the sketches by year would be for the best, but this can be done through editorial discussion. A merge still needs to happen, but I'm going to leave it in the hands of editors to discuss this and come up with the best solution. (non-administrative closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undertakers sketch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not subject to significant coverage in reliable sources, and despite being "perhaps the most notorious of the Python team's television sketches" (PEACOCK alert!), generally non-notable ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there appears to be non-trivial coverage at [1], [2], [3], [4]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and [5], [6]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention [7], [8], [9], [10]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources listed by Sergeant Cribb well demonstrate the notability of the topic. Bravo. Warden (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• So far I've looked at the first source (see talk) and was unable to find reference to the subject of that article there. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the foot of page 97 and ending on page 98: start at "an undertaker's sketch ... " Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • [11]
    • Monty Python, Shakespeare, and English Renaissance drama By Darl Larsen,
    • search says p 98 but I see no mention there? Thanks, I did finally get that, it's just that (and not being snarky at all) the reference was so short I missed it. "an undertaker's sketch where it is decided to cook and eat a recently deceased woman."
  • [12]
    • Come on down?: popular media culture in post-war Britain, By Dominic Strinati, Stephen Wagg,
    • five sentences.
  • [13]
    • Popular film and television comedy By Stephen Neale, Frank Krutnik
    • four sentences.
  • [14]
    • The Comics journal, Issue 182
    • full text not available, appears to be one paragraph in a numbered list.
  • [15]
    • This is not a reliable source
    • "A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy," contains partial transcript of the sketch and some discussion.
  • [16]
    • The Journal of Hellenic Studies
    • Full text not available, appears to be a tangential mention?
  • [17]
    • What the BBC really thought of Monty Python, The Telegraph
    • One line mention, no actual information on sketch
    • full cite: "another called The Undertaker's Sketch, starring Cleese as a man unsure of how to dispose of his mother's body,"
  • [18]
    • Top five cadaver gags, Chosen by Sarah Donaldson The Telegraph,
    • It wins! One paragraph.
  • [19]
    • Review/promotional piece for "Monty Python: Almost the Truth – The Lawyers Cut"
    • Google translate at [20]
    • Partial transcript + one sentence.
  • [21]
    • What the BBC thought of Monty Python... ohh, that looks familiar.
    • One line, full text is "a sketch in which Graham Chapman, playing an undertaker, offered to dump and eat the body of John Cleese's dead mother."
      
      I'm a bit disappointed by the overall quality of these results. The burden is not to simply locate a collection of places it's mentioned however briefly, but to locate the foundations upon which an article can be built. Based upon these sources, we would at best be able to provide one paragraph of material the is verifiable per our core content policy.
      
      Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Ph.D. dissertation is usually considered a reliable source. Why not here? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• *snort, spits coffee on keyboard* Wow, when I'm wrong I'm wrong. The page says right there in black and white that these are reliable sources. *scratches head, wipes keyboard* I'm now going to have to hunt through history to figure out why I thought that, and thanks for pointing that out.
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Monty Python, Shakespeare, and English Renaissance drama By Darl Larsen: the description of the sketch, and the analysis of its ending, carries on half-way down page 98. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge material into a new Monty Python sketches article - There appear to be about 30 WP articles on individual MP sketches. See Template:Monty Python for a list. It appears that virtually all of those have few or no sources justifying notability. Even the notable sketches like The Argument Sketch are poorly sourced. Many of the sketches probably fail the WP:Notability requirement. I suggest that some MP-knowledgeable editor create a new article "Monty Python sketches" which contains a list of all the important sketches (say, 1 or 2 paragraphs each); and we delete the poorly sourced sketch articles. Sketch articles with obvious notability, such as The Argument Sketch, can be kept (although even that needs better sourcing). The new "Sketch" article could be a WP:List article, or just a normal non-List article. --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the "delete" part would be totally inappropiate. There's no question that there are sources for this, and that thus we can verify some parts of it, so there's no compelling reason to remove the topic. "Merge" is what has to happen if we want to maintain attribution for the material, a requirement of the GFDL license. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My proposal does not mean the material disappears from the encyclopedia: Im simply suggesting that the material be moved into a broader article that covers several sketches, because the notability of each individual sketch is marginal. For example, look at the very famous The Simpsons show: it does not have articles for each sketch/episode, but instead collects them into groups, for instance there is an article The Simpsons (season 5) that includes about 20 episodes. I'm suggesting that that is the best way to go for Monty Python. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One important WP policy decision related to this was the famous Pokemon decision from several years ago: there used to be individual WP articles for each Pokemon species, even those that were of marginal/low notability: so the solution was to aggregate them into articles such as List of Pokémon (546–598) ... that is a good compromise solution: the material is still in the encyclopedia, but the importance is not over-emphasized. --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        I was just pointing out that the license doesn't fit well with "delete and merge," I thought it was clear I was supporting a merge from the first. Sorry for being unintentionally obfuscatory. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Can you clarify what you mean by "merge"? Do you mean merge this sketch article into some other existing article? Or into a new Monty Python sketches article like I propose? Or something else? --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice at the TV project asking for input on this issue, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Input_needed_re:_individual_articles_for_each_episode.2Fsketch. --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... also posted notice of this merge proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Monty_Python#Merge_proposal. -Noleander (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Each sketch is notable, give or take a few sources, but make for very short articles. A list of the notable MP sketches would make the most sense to a comprehensive article that is still notable (possibly even moreso since it's the collection of sketches that MP is known for and not any one particular sketch except perhaps the Parrot one). It's less a notability issue as opposed to style. Redirects should be left behind since all of these are likely search terms. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Monty Python sketches article. As a reader it would be great to have these all in one spot. As an editor it would be easier to work on them in one spot also. MarnetteD | Talk 17:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seeing as MP made dozens and dozens of sketches, such a list might become excessively long. Perhaps merge all sketches into episode or season articles? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 30 WP articles on individual sketches. Assuming 5 are notable and deserve their own articles, that leaves 25 to get merged into List articles. If each sketch were represented with 1 or 2 paragraphs (not unreasonable, since many of the articles are that size), that would be 25-50 paragraphs. That would be a large list, but not too large. If it is too large, breaking it by year may be okay: it looks like MP was on for 5 years: 1969 to 1974, so there could be 5 articles. I don't think breaking the lists by episode would help the situation: there are probably only 2 or 3 (WP article) sketches per episode. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 Seasons might be better than 5 years, it'd be more in line with other TV series lists. Episodes typically had half a dozen sketches, along with animated bits etc. which deserve a brief mention but not an article. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2011 (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.