Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history

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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history[edit]

Delete pure OR and subjective POV, what makes these incidents "infamous"? in whose opinion? what is the objective criteria for inclusion or not? Or is this just the funniest (or most disquieting) moments in the opinion of someone (or a prudish other). Enquiring minds want to know... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not original research - just show-biz gossip. Seems notable though and so worth retaining as art of coverage of SNL. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly POV in my opinion; as Carlos asked, what makes these incidents "infamous"? Rsazevedo ^msg 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research at worst, synthesis at best. Either way, the article's only intent is to promote the subjective viewpoint of its author. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete clearly original research. Most of the few references are transcripts, which don't establish that the material is 'infamous'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom that deciding what's "infamous" is OR Corpx (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. As it stands it's a POV fork (owing to the labelling of "infamous" which is POV). This is not original research; original research is just that - NEW information. What this is is reporting information from a primary source, namely SNL, so it's not OR in any way. 23skidoo (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the "Infamous" modifier in the title, it becomes "moments in Saturday Night Live history" which, again, would be differentiated by one or more editors' take on what the most notable or interesting moments were. It is therefore original research (or synthesis) and, for the most part, unsalvageably unencyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (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.