- 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 Speedy Keep Since the article has been completely rewritten, and I appear to be the last person (including the original nominator) to revisit the AfD, it seems appropriate to close it instead of simply striking my original merge !vote. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Loopner (moved to The Nerds)
edit- Lisa Loopner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating this mainly due to no references. Also, it is written as if this was a real person, and not a character in a skit. Probably needs to be merged into a relevant SNL article. The Eskimo (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Not sure why this is at AfD--if you're just looking for help for a merge destination, the talk page may be more help. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your suggestion. To clarify, I usually AFD in these type of cases mainly because of no references. Lack of attribution has been a touchy subject on Jimbo's page, and others, of late. Also, it is my experience that pop-culture related articles (like SNL) have so many forks, and the discussion boards are so full of POV from people who honestly don't understand the policies, that AFD generally gets the job done in a more expedient fashion, and avoids pointless edit wars. Had the article been of a more academic subject, I probably would have just done a merge, and left a message on the talk page as you suggested. That said, still, I prefer deletion of articles written with no refs. These kind of subjects (pop culture) are not my cup of tea, and I am not going to go browsing around for refs just because the original editor failed to do it correctly the first time. The Eskimo (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The recurring sketch wasn't exactly a monologue by Gilda Radner. In books about SNL, it's usually referred to as "The Nerds", and there is some real world notability for the sketch. The show was sued by the person whose name Bill Murray borrowed and based his character on, and there were people who were upset by skits like the "Nerds Nativity" and Dan Aykroyd's refrigerator repairman. It would work as an article about the sketch. The biography is classic 2005 Wikipedia, a leftover from its sillier days. Mandsford 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Lacks references to WP:verify notability which is grounds for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Refactoring comment. Substantial rewrite with new topic. Not sure what to make of it since I was commenting on Lisa Loopner. I'll keep my comment neutral since I don't know how to handle an AFD like this. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford is right. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after its post-nomination improvements and the move to The Nerds with grateful kudos to User:Uncle G. While yes, the original article on Lisa Loopner was unreferenced,[1] and would deserve a redirect at best, the article as it now stands bears little resemblance to what was first nominated. Uncle G's superb rewrite and sourcing now show the notability for this iconic SNL sketch that Wikipedia requires. Good job that he recognized the potential and acted on WP:ATD. Perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal now that his original concerns have been so neatly addressed? Succinctly, his nomination was about a different article entirely... and this one is not it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Great job by the G-man in turning this article from an OR character-bio into one about a very notable series of sketches from the early days of SNL. Mandsford 14:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as nominator I applaude the initiative of Uncle G for rewriting the article. All my original concerns have been addressed. I am glad to see it remain as a good article and not in a merge. Closing as keep would be fine with me. The Eskimo (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2010 (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.