Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage Guidance Counsellor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The early "delete" opinions based on the then-inexistent sourcing are no longer current because sources were added to the article on June 11. There is no consensus about whether the article (and similar ones) should be merged or retained seperately, but that discussion can continue on the appropriate talk and project pages.  Sandstein  19:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Guidance Counsellor

[edit]
Marriage Guidance Counsellor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a non-notable sketch which has received absolutely no direct and detailed coverage in third-party reliable sources. PROD-tag removed with no explanation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 13:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote per discussions below. There is clearly no scope for an article per WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. What is reliably sourced is a line or two which can and should be merged. The rename should be to something like Marriage Guidance Counsellor sketch to make it clear that this is not about Marriage Guidance. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per William M. Connolley. TreasuryTag, do not respond to this comment, either here or on my talkpage or at any other location. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any coverage in reliable sources to substantiate the article's notability? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd call WP:EPISODE the closest guidline, and it seems to fail that. Is there any reason to go beyond what's already in And Now for Something Completely Different?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to And Now for Something Completely Different. I love this sketch – in the same way that I love practically all Python sketches. But that's not a reason for this stubby article. We don't need detailed plot summaries for all Python sketches. Nowadays it's easy enough to simply watch them if you want to know what they are about, and the scripts have also been published. Hans Adler 17:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the unquestioned notability of Monty Python does not and cannot convey notability onto every element of it. For this article to stand there would need to be independent reliable sources that significantly cover the sketch and allow for the writing of an article that is something other than a description of the plot of the sketch, demonstrating out-of-universe perspective. In the absence of such sources then the article should be deleted. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NYB. -Atmoz (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm moderately amused that (so far) three supposedly sensible people think it worth carrying out an absurd campaign of what they presumably consider to be civil disobedience, solely in order to keep a flagrantly non-notable article, I'll just stick to repeating my question from above: do you have any coverage in reliable sources to substantiate the article's notability? Yes or no? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced minimal skit that could be merged into the movie with a pointer to the subsection from the Flying Circus. Hasteur (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - saw this listed and assumed it was about Marriage Guidance (ie Relate or similar). I see it is in fact about one of Monty Python's less well-remembered sketches. I can see nothing to assert it is notable in its own right. If anything the link with a lower case "c" should direct to National Marriage Guidance CouncilGraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've warned TreasuryTag [1] for canvassing this AfD [2] at WP:VPP. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment seems like a rather desperate violation of WP:AGF... Could you suggest a better method of seeking advice to deal with the ongoing disruption at that AfD? I would note that I didn't link to it (yes, it could easily be found in my contributions, but that's kind of unavoidable) and worded my message completely neutrally: if you disagree, perhaps you could suggest alternative phrasing.
    Reading WP:CANVASS#Campaigning, I see that campaigning is "an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent." None of those seems to apply here; in fact, your whole comment above is outrageous and I would ask you to justify it further or apologise. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find some irony in TreasuryTag posting the above comment in no less than 3 places [3] [4] [5] (including my talk page despite a prominent edit notice) after getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I had heard from other editors how TreasuryTag tended to lash out at people, and having now witnessed it for myself, (apparently I'm now a "troll" [6] which per WP:OWB#44 I'll take as a compliment) I now can see some truth to what other editors were saying. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I note the complete absence of explanation/justification of the canvassing allegation in the above (highly unpleasant) 'response'. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect Would be open to reconsidering if someone could give a policy based reason for the keep, but so far it fails the applicable guideline I see.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect; no indication of particular significance or notability for this skit that would justify a standalone article. I couldn't find a master list of skits, but this one would be appropriately noted either within the context of the Flying Circus episode that originally featured it, or its remake in And Now For Something Completely Different. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get four links, 1 passing mention of the sketch, 2 where the words coincide but do not reference the sketch, and 1 spoof headline site. Case not proven. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to And Now for Something Completely Different per Hans, Postdlf et al. Also: I'm seeing seeing some good, long-term, well-respected Wikipedians here, with votes on both sides of this particular discussion, writing some unnecessarily harsh things to each other. Stay cool, everyone - and be kind to one another. Neutralitytalk 04:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are two things that contribute to making this AfD contentious. One is that the sketch has a cultural significance that is not reflected by the lack of sources discussing it in detail. If it was possible to write an article about it that goes well beyond a plot summary while not being full of OR, then I would support such an article per IAR. But apparently it isn't, and what remains is the question whether we should have permanent stubs or whether we should organise the information within longer articles on broader topics. I prefer the latter because it's easier to maintain and does not require IAR. The other thing is the nominator's often abrasive behaviour (example related to this AfD [7]), which tends to cause reactance. Hans Adler 06:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I admit that [8] was disgusting, outrageous, over-the-top and I really let myself and the rest of the community down with it. It was a real moment of weakness.</sarcasm> ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree, particularly on the principle that we should prefer robust, well-organized articles (or lists) focusing on broader topics over dozens and dozens of permastubs. There are many compelling reasons to do so, and two are that (1) content is more likely to be put in proper context, because it relates to others in a series and (2) more editors' eyes can patrol in a more concentrated area -- both of these allow for content to be preserved while also ideally promoting good reliable sources and curbing excessive detail. This is one of the principles of mergism, I suppose. Neutralitytalk 06:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in reliable sources and I have added a few citations to the article, so making most of the hand-waving discussion above obsolete. For a good example of detailed coverage, please see Nonsense versus Tiefsinn? Ein interkultureller Vergleich des deutschen und englischen Humors am Beispiel der Fernsehsketche von Loriot und Monty Python. The coverage being in German gives it a deliciously Pythonesque flavour rather like the peculiar Fliegender Zirkus spin-off in which the sketch almost appeared (it was cut). The Pythons' material is best covered at sketch level as the sketches are only loosely linked and were recycled in a variety of formats and presentations. Warden (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The interkultureller Vergleich reference is good, but the others are frankly just mentions. Have you anything else? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually saw this, and it's just a master's thesis published in book form by [GRIN] ("With GRIN you can publish your term papers, textbooks, your dissertation or thesis - all kinds of academic works. [...] Upload your papers now!"), so essentially self-published. This does not convey any notability beyond that which comes from every master's thesis – which is very little. I read the section that deals with the two sketches. It gives plot summaries for both, then ends witha perfunctory 2-paragraph comparison. I decided that it was useless for the article, except perhaps to justify with it mentioning the Loriot sketch in relation to the Pythons sketch. Hans Adler 09:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist this AfD, please, from scratch, with a note that this is an AfD and therefore about content. It is not an RFC on Treasury Tag's conduct, personality, or editing behaviour. Altogether too many users who are senior and experienced enough to know better have decided to treat it as one. I'm particularly unimpressed by the user who thinks it's a good idea to use an AfD to directly and personally insult Treasury Tag and then tell him he's not allowed to reply.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that with the additional reason that Warden has found a significant reference that renders some of the discussions moot. I for one would like to reset the clock to reconsider. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with starting again, but (according to google translation) the German reference is a thesis for an MA, guidelines say PhD thesis is the level for RS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A self published master's thesis with a plot summary and an uninspired comparison to a similar sketch doesn't establish individual notability and doesn't make it easier to make this a proper article. NYB's comment was because of TT's habit of responding and then pestering people with "talkback" templates on their talk pages until they respond (or TT gets blocked). Hans Adler 09:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's true, he could have said "please do not reply on my talkpage". What he said was "Here is a personal, petty criticism of you. Do not reply to it, anywhere, under any circumstances."—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just shows NYB is human, after all. See TT's first four comments ever on NYB's talk page, a year ago. 4 talkback templates in 8 minutes, with three of them after a polite request not to use them. Then another talkback template in November, 6 days after he played the same game on me. Then in April this and this. It doesn't justify, but it explains. Hans Adler 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I understand that. Nevertheless, the present discussion seems unsatisfactory to me, focusing as it does on personalities rather than issues and conduct rather than content, and I do think it's irretrievably tainted by that. We should begin afresh.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per S Marshall. It's not possible to have a sensible discussion like this. And I'm frankly surprised at some of the behaviour here from editors I genuinely respect. Can we please keep XfD discussions to debating articles, rather than individual users and what they have/haven't done here there and everywhere in the last several years. --Dweller (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Enough references have been shown that the behavior makes no difference at all. MA Theses have frequently been accepted as sources, for example in local history, where they are often the only academic sources available, and the same situation is present here, also--much of the study of contemporary popular culture is done at that level. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...although even if that were so, it's quite hard to have a single MA thesis qualify as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" – ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite willing to agree with you that it seems absurd that something like this should be notable. But so it is. I admit that on the precedent of this I am very tempted to write articles about individual scenes or chapters in films or novels or other fictions that have been discussed extensively by 2 or more critics--I can think of about 50 in Jane Austen. (e.g. Darcy's first proposal) I can think of many hundreds in Shakespeare, (e.g. the tavern scene in Henry IV pt 1), or the ghost on the battlements in Hamlet. I can thing of many individual couplets within a poem. Now, I think all of these should be discussed in Wikipedia, with a paragraph or two and the references to the classic interpretations of them-- but not with a separate article. We probably need some sensible discussion of what to merge. This would be greatly helped by the fiction minimalists not trying to keep cutting the content after the merges. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of new references now that take this topic closer to notability, but I still don't see it. The self-published MA thesis has just one (short) page of plot summary plus one (short) page of perfunctory comparison to a Loriot sketch that may or may not have been inspired by this one. We must combine the fact that even the best MA thesis usually provides very little evidence of notability and the very small extent to which it actually says something about the sketch. (Here is what it says about the sketch, only slightly shortened: Two of the protagonists have ruthless fun. There is no mercy on the third, and the cowboy exacerbates the perfidiousness of the plot. The openly cruel story has no moral message whatsoever. Only the absurdity of the constellation – the openness of the adultery, the cowboy, the knight, and the chicken – prevents it from feeling outright cruel. In comparison, the Loriot sketch is less openly aggressive but more shattering due to its greater realism.) The result is that the MA thesis provides no additional notability. And I am not sure that articles in a Monty Python encyclopedia (presumably one exists, although it's not cited explicitly) provide significantly more notability than articles in Pokémon encyclopedias.
    This is a relatively significant sketch, and very well known, as the passing mention in the Independent article on Carol Cleveland shows. But it is at most borderline notable, and the article shows very little promise.
    One thing that distinguishes Monty Python from Jane Austen is that one thinks of an Austen novel mostly as a single entity, while one thinks of a Monty Python episode either as a part of Monty Python's Flying Circus or as a more or less random collection of individual Python sketches. This is reinforced by the fact that some of them (such as this one) later appeared in a different context in a film or live show. But it's still reasonable to keep the plot summaries in episode or list articles. We shouldn't create a full article just to prevent very minor duplication. (At the moment it's not even prevented, as the plot summary is summarised anyway.)
    A better approach might be articles that tie together sketches with similar features, if proper sourcing can be found for that. (E.g. "Monty Python and marriage".) Much as I would enjoy reading a good article about Mr Collins's proposal to Elizabeth, a general article about Austen's proposal scenes would be much better. Hans Adler 07:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I have changed my mind on this as a result of my analysis in the paragraph just above. ; my original instinct was right--this is an absurdly minute and over-divided topic for an article. The references are technically sufficient for GNG, but this is not enough. To justify an articles on such a minute subject there would have to be exceptionally good references indeed--multiple major popular an= or academic discussions. I have often enough said that the technical fulfillment of WP:GNG is not necessarily relevant, and this is in fact supported by notability policy; it currently goes half way, by saying something notable is not necessarily suitable for an article. I go the other half, & say that something not technically notable is not necessarily inappropriate for an article. So if GNG is neither necessary nor sufficient, what good is it? I interpret WP:GNG as a rough guide, a Procrustean measure that ignores reality, in favor of what seems like a convenient trick to make decisions. When I first cam here I thought it was remarkably clever, but I've learned a lot in 4 years. We go by what is notable in the Real World, to be sure, but there are many ways something in the RW can be notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DGG. And strongly protest the petty and unwarranted attacks on the nominator. This was clearly a good faith nomination. Reyk YO! 09:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there are reliable sources covering this topic, but not enough to justify an independent article. Anthem 11:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I gather this comment is by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:27, 14 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marriage_Guidance_Counsellor&oldid=1150994843"