Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albatross (Monty Python sketch)

Albatross (Monty Python sketch)

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

This was previously discussed 4 years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albatross (Monty Python), and was since renominated for G4 by a sockpuppet of the original banned nominator and deleted. Since other Python sketches have been recently kept, it seems like consensus very likely may have changed. Administrative nomination only--I will probably try to find sources and see if it's keepable. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SK: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". There is no such thing as an administrative nomination because it is our policy that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". Warden (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, your insistence that all administrative nominations should fail because of WP:SK is, in my opinion, hurting the AFD process. Sometimes an editor needs to forward a deletion that was malformed, the subject of a DRV that decided to relist it, and so on. These do not qualify for WP:SK. We say we are not a bureaucracy, but we do have processes and procedures that should not be thrown out simply because we are not bureaucratic. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing an article to AFD when you don't actually want it deleted and don't provide an reason why it should be deleted is so absurd that it could be a Monty Python sketch itself. A Fish Licence or shrubbery is not needed to recreate an article. If someone thinks that there's a problem requiring deletion then let them state what it is. Warden (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Right, stop this. It's silly. What would Guido do? Seriously, if there is reasonable expectation that notable sources can be found for this sketch (not to mention the fact it's the inspiration for the Albatross framework on Python), then it should be tagged as requiring those, not deleted. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking for scholarly references I found A. Pallesen. Roimata Toroa (Tears of the Albatross): A Historical Review of the Albatross in Folklore, and a Critical Examination of the Environmental Law Protections (PDF). Graduate Certificate in Antarctic Studies Literature Review. which I felt appropriate to the whole tone of the debate somehow. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not subject to deletion, merely pining for the fjords. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's the finest request at WP:AfD" "Why do you say that?" "It's so clean!" "It's certainly uncontaminated by reasons to delete." Keep and sell to the spectators. Wabbott9 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wolfowitz. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why dont we get rid of this junk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Dog makes love to my Cat (talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Just to clarify, that means DELETE.[reply]