Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was No consensus, this was very close to borderline for delete. As a no consensus, this would default to a redirect (to Chappelle's Show_, and redirects are cheap. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James[edit]

I am re-nominating this article, which was originally nominated for deletion a week ago ([discussion here]). The original nomination was withdrawn, though the consensus seemed to be leaning towards delete or merge. The article itself contains no content that does not properly belong on Chappelle's Show, is non-notable and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and one sketch on one show by one performer ~~shown in one country~~ should only very rarely meet the notability criteria. Moreover, the article contains unverified, and probably unverifiable statements to suggest notability, such as this being one of "the most popular sketches to come out of" the show. For all those reasons, and for being comedycruft, I ask for people to once again vote Delete. Vizjim 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request. I can't work out how to link to the previous discussion. Sorry! Can someone please do it for me? Many thanks, and apologies for my weak web-fu. Vizjim 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James. — AKADriver ☎ 19:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single sketch from a single comedy show. Sure we have articles on sketches - the Parrot Sketch, for example. Is this the Parrot Sketch? Not as such. If there is a case for independent notability it is not made in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest a merge, but the Chappelle's Show article sufficiently covers this sketch. A redirect is also unnecessary because is anyone REALLY going to type that entire thing in to find this article? Metros232 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. I probably wouldn't nominate it again, because Wikipedians love their TV and TV articles, but I still think it needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be okay (the current content is almost, but not quite all covered at Chapelle's Show and Rick James). Honestly, if this were a vote, I'd vote to keep it - this sketch spawned what was probably the biggest catch phrase of 2004, used quite a bit outside the context of the show. It's far more notable than any individual internet meme. I say this all speaking as not a fan... the fact that I've heard it and seen the sketch even though I never watch the show says something, to me. If someone could produce sources verifying the use of the catch phrase, and work those into the article, I'd definitely say Keep. — AKADriver ☎ 19:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metros232. It's the most well-known sketch from this show, but it's already summarized twice in the Chappelle's Show article. --Metropolitan90 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chappelle's Show. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How? The content's pretty much already there. Vizjim 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is the purpose of these repeated AfDs to simply keep nominating until it disappears? - Richardcavell 04:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Please read the explanation at the start of this nomination (the second sentence explains the answer to your question). Vizjim 08:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "and one sketch on one show by one performer shown in one country should only very rarely meet the notability criteria." What do you mean by this? I'm so sorry you do not consider Australia a country. This sketch is notable and should be kept. Cvene64 10:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the offending clause, as it makes absolutely no difference to the case. I was not aware that the sketch was later re-shown in Australia. My humble apologies. Why is the sketch notable, by the way? Vizjim 10:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable because it is a popular part of western culture in some peoples eyes. Just because you personally do not think so, that doesnt make it non-notable. If it is merged, the content will be restricted in terms of size and use of images, thus, it should be kept. Cvene64 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - "I'm Rick James, bitch!" was 2004-2005's "Where's the beef?". — AKADriver ☎ 13:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notability of "Where's the beef" lies in its use in a Presidential debate. Any equivalents here? Vizjim 16:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't believe that this sketch has a wide enough recognition to make it encyclopedic, as a sketch in a comedy show would not normally be notable enough for an article. I'd say "where's the beef" is borderline and this sketch is not as famous. -- Kjkolb 23:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above. S t e v e o 2 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was an enormous fad at the time and Wikipedia covers damn near every fad. A Clown in the Dark 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Cocaine is a helluva drug. Eusebeus 03:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Per Metros232, no need to merge. ScottW 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I'm someone who thinks that this may be the funniest thing I've ever seen on television. Be that as it may, however, this does not yet have the cultural significance to warrant its own article. As others said above, it was a big fad in its day, but I'm not convinced it'll ever be more than a fad. --Deville (Talk) 23:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, if it's going to get deleted, at least redirect it to Chappelle's Show to avoid the redlink syndrome. - Richardcavell 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; seems nn. Runcorn 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was not just any sketch, and it caught on with the people.

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.