Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Praline

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 per strong consensus, and per article improvements since nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Praline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - fails Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. There are no reliable sources that are substantively about this character, as opposed to simply mentioning him, so it fails notability guidelines as well. The notability of Monty Python does not mean that every character that ever appeared in an episode of Monty Python is also notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is possibly the most notable character on Monty Python. BradV 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there should be no problem finding reliable sources that are substantially about the character, as required by WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no problem finding sources - in fact I put three of the many available into the article when I removed the prod tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources you added are not substantively about the character. They are short passages in longer books that merely describe the plots of the sketches in which the character appears. Your first source is literally two sentences out of a 249 page book that merely mentions the character's name. Your second source is a plot description. Your third source is one paragraph from a 291 page book and again only describes the character's actions in a sketch. None of these constitute reliable sources attesting to the notability of the character. Please read WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS and WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep We're seriously talking about deleting Mr. PRALINE now? Man, these AfDs get more and more time- and content-draining... Dekkappai (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mr Praline is one of the iconic images of 20th-century comedy, created by one of the most influential comedy groups of the 20th century. Notability is not in doubt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there should be no problem in finding sources that are substantively about the character, and not just recountings of the plot of the character's appearances. Just asserting notability doesn't make it so in the absence of sources. Just repeating it time and time again doesn't make it true. Otto4711 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For all the reasons previously given.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You're kidding? Close and get this over with, someone please. --Blechnic (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More people can quote Mr. Praline than can quote anything George W. Bush ever said. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The ability of people to quote the character does not establish the notability of the character. Reliable sources do. Otto4711 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite right, and I don't mind you bringing that up a 4th time, but it's not my job to do everything there is to be done on Wikipedia. I'm saying that if the decision is made to delete, I will be shocked and saddened, and when I have time, I'll go hunt up some references. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is the job of those wanting the article kept to provide reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Otto4711 (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant info with Dead Parrot. Not notable enough for own article. Epbr123 (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also like to point out a canvassing issue. Epbr123 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge would not be appropriate, as Mr Praline was one of the very few recurring characters in Monty Python (which alone would make him notable IMO), and appeared in other sketches as well as the Dead Parrot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I can think of quite a few other recurring characters, and his other appearances weren't notable so they won't need to be mentioned in detail in the Dead Parrot article. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. If a merger were under consideration, it would have been better to propose a merger of the Dead Parrot article into Mr Praline (with the Dead Parrot article becoming a redirection page linking directly to a section in Mr Praline that covers his appearance and role in Dead Parrot.) However, if this were a serious contender, Dead Parrot ought ideally to have been in the AfD in a more prominent position, and, even if it were, I'm not sure that the arguments in favour of doing any merger this way round would be compelling.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The Dead Parrot sketch is more notable than Mr Praline, so a merger the other way would be inappropriate. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the exchanges here demonstrate that a merge either way would be wrong - Dead Parrot is notable beyond Mr Praline, and vice versa, so both articles should be kept as different perspectives on their roles in Monty Python. I find it difficult to believe that people are considering deleting this article when this is a character who is still well known after nearly forty years. How many of the characters in current TV shows whose articles are routinely kept at AfD will still be remembered after that time? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps those that, unlike Mr Praline, have reliable sources that are substantively about the characters rather than simply summarizing the plots of the sketches in which the character appears. Seriously, for all of this gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about what a loss to Wikipedia deleting this article would be, what is said in the article that isn't said better in Dead Parrot and Fish Licence? What is in this article other than plot summaries of the character's appearances, which if you looked at this AFD without the cloud of Python fanboy haze, you'd realize is a flat-out violation of Wikipedia policy? I love Mr Praline too, but just because we love Mr Praline doesn't mean the character is notable enough for his own article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly sourced, notability easily asserted, keep. —Giggy 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources are not strong. They are textbook examples of "trivial coverage" as explained in footnote 1 of WP:N: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. Whether or not notability is asserted is not the standard for keeping. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Otto4711 (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2008 (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.