Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches

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 keep. Merging may be appropriate, but in this instance, I'd be uncomfortable calling this AfD as being in favour of a merge. What is clear from all comments, however, is that the content should be retained. Feel free to discuss other issues outside AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches

(delete) – (View log)

All 3 of the articles here are almost extreme examples of WP:OR. None of these 3 articles have any references whatsoever. And these articles all date back to 2005 and 2006, so there has been plenty of time to present examples. The chronological list article might be the worst of the 3 as the dates have no references. Very bad example of list and fancruft. There isn't an even a definition of what is considered "recurring". User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The article writers may have been too lazy to list sources, but SNL is probably one of the most documented television shows in history. Entire sites are devoted to it, such as SNL transcripts and The SNL archives]. Even by television show standards, the SNL summaries of skits are excessively detailed. Anyone who is trying to put this together by original research (i.e., watching a skit and taking notes) is wasting their time. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Saturday Night Live TV show sketches. Dalejenkins | 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep the content. The list vs. narrative form difference should be an editorial decision, not an AfD decision. Mandsford's comment on notability is spot-on, and the nominator is admonished to understand the difference between WP:OR (which this is not) and articles that lack sources (which this is). Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep all Three alternative and useful listings for a major topic field. The chronological one could be combined with the main one in a sortable list, but the one by character which could not. if someone really insists on adding an explicit evidence that a show appeared on a given date, it can be added easily enough. DGG (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Saturday Night Live TV show sketches. JamesBurns (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (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.