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.
Granted some people will remember this character but that's true of a lot of non-notable recurring SNL sketches. By Wikipedia standards this does not meet the
WP:SIGCOV requirement in the
WP:GNG. Only passing mentions. Was kept at past nomination based on improvement that won't happen (and hasn't).
Jontesta (
talk)
00:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, potential sources include books Saturday Night Live: Shaping TV Comedy and American Culture (2014), Saturday Night Live FAQ (2013), and Live From New York: An Uncensored History Of Saturday Night Live (2008), the multiple years showing critical commentary staying power over a prolonged period of time.
Right cite (
talk)
01:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect - Most of these seems to be trivial coverage. Of the above three books, two are minor mentions and one just has descriptions of various sketches with no commentary. Of what is in the article, the books sources appear to be more trivial mentions. The The prime time closet: a history of gays and lesbians on TV is literally just a minor blurb describing the skit's premise in a single sentence. The minor news articles can easily be covered in
Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1997–98.
TTN (
talk)
12:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually looking at most of the sources, it seems to be a whole lot of nothing prettied up to look nice on the page. The mentions are largely trivial, and much of them aren't even at the level of being filler material.
TTN (
talk)
19:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to the target already identified. Since as outlined by TTN the sources are extremely trivial filler material and trivial sourcing does not warrant a stand alone article. Merging it to another article is perfectly fine though. The important thing is that people can read about the character. How that exactly happens, at least in relation to this particular AfD, is pretty inconsequential. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources look good and taken as a whole pass GNG. Readers would benefit most by keeping this article as it is, not by deleting or merging it.
Rhino131 (
talk)
22:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Moreover, "Was kept at past nomination based on improvement that won't happen (and hasn't)" is demonstrably false. There were 3 references
during the last AFD, and there are now 45, including more than enough significant coverage to meet GNG. --
Wikipedical (
talk)
19:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have not watched a lot of the show, that has been around a long time so notable itself, and have a disdain for the bloated and unnecessary sometime paragraph length explanatory entries that are not part of a sub-title (see talk page) there is notability of the subject as evidenced by the current sourcing.
Otr500 (
talk)
15:14, 3 November 2020 (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.