Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live) (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 was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mango (Saturday Night Live)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Style magazine no longer exist apparently, so the article there is a dead link. https://ew.com/article/2014/06/03/chris-kattan-mango-cfda-awards/ and other references I added I believe prove he is notable. I'll tag this article for Rescue to get more help working on it. Dream Focus 01:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus:, I fixed the link to Style magazine. Thanks for your help, Right cite (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:14, 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]

"potential sources" --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 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]
Delete and redirect Should really but a paragraph in an SNL article, non-notable enough on its own. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dream Focus and myself did research work and improved the page. Please compare (before) with (after improvement work by myself and Dream Focus). Michael Musto wrote that Mango was "etched into our memories". The Art of Comedy called Mango among "some of the greatest characters" from Saturday Night Live. Thank you, to Dream Focus, for the helpful contributions and collaboration! Right cite (talk) 17:57, 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 as summarized to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1997–98#Mango. The reception section cobbles together some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, a lot of which is just rehashing the basic premise or actor, and missing the WP:SIGCOV you would need to establish notability. The list of sketches is missing a paragraph about Mango, and it's short (less than 10kb), so a basic history of the sketch could easily be summarized and merged there. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable character in a notable series, passes GNG as well. Glee^anon 18:51, 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 Clearly notable based on citations. ~~No additional WP:BEFORE needed!~~ Thank you for the excellent work Dream Focus and Right cite! — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:22, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage seems sufficient. Artw (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage seems sufficient. Notability was found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live), and it still pertains. WP:Link rot does not mean the citations are voided. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 30 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 per GNG. ("Mango is like a drug. You must have more and more and more of the Mango until there is no Mango left. Not even for Mango!") ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 31 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.