Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests

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 no consensus. Remarks section was removed, so that took cares of the WP:NOR issues, both sides didn't have strong policy based reasoning, thus no consensus.Secret ^account 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests[edit]

SNL season pages already exist to database episodes in an orderly fashion for the reader. This enormous 172KB list of episodes is redundant of the season pages. While I have been in favor of LOEs and season pages coexisting, for SNL which has 33+ seasons, an LOE is just unreasonable. Also, the page is muddled with original research in the "Remarks" sections. How can an encyclopedia objectively 'remark' on episodes? If "remarks" in this case means "details," I would save them for the season pages anyway. In sum, the page is redundant, hard to comprehend, and contains OR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and definitely needs more references. The page is also far too long. ― LADY GALAXY 04:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be sourced, since each episode was covered by US newspapers. With substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, each episode is notable. Edison (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable, but it's already being covered at the 33+ season pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Agreed, but the way it's organized makes it useful. Having notable facts organized in a reasonable (and useful) way is encyclopedic IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:USEFUL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, please see that essay: "There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." Torc2 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete information was already split into the pages for the respective seasons Doc Strange (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered on seasonal articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd recommend that someone (maybe me if I get time) should doublecheck that all of the information here is indeed covered at the season article, as it's possible that a properly sourced and verifiable nugget of information was added here and not there. Beyond that, though - The list is redundant. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a really useful list to complied all the information in one place instead of having to search episode page by episode page to find the information you're looking for. Users can just click here and scan, control+f, or Google-highlight to find the information that they're looking for. I think a lot of the information contained in the list is redundant and problematic for the reasons listed above, but let me try something: simplifying the list rather than doing away with it all together. I think getting rid of the last column would simplify the list and make it weildy. --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't there some policy that says useful isn't an acceptable keep reason? I thought there was, but I don't have the exact link. Anyway, if the article fails policies... it being "useful" doesn't matter here. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's some weak essay that claims "it's useful" with no other explanation should be avoided. Fortunately In Defense of the Artist didn't just say "it's useful", but provided a good reason why it's useful. Torc2 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete With 33 and counting seasons the article was getting long but it also had a lot of info that the individual season pages didn't have. I say move the appropriate information to the season pages and delete the article. Drn211 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "History of" articles do not include this information in a way that can be easily parsed. (It looks like the "History of SNL" articles just point to this article for that information.) Realistically, this whole table could be merged to those articles, which would make them too big (and not due to "excessive" information, but information we need to have), which would cause them to be separated out again. If the size of this article is a problem, it should simply be split up to Seasons 1-10, 11-20, etc. Torc2 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- edit - It's been pointed out to me that the information in the individual seasons is in fact exactly the same. I still think this is the article to keep, and the season articles should include a pointer to this article instead of smaller lists. Torc2 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia, Hobit, and Torc2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable information concerning a notable show. The article satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the extensive detail appropriately in WP for the famous series, a combination summary seems appropriate. DGG (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as any other List of X television show episodes. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concise, notable, verifiable and valuable information gathered in one well-organized, easy to use location. Very worthy list. J. Van Meter (talk) 05:13, 27 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.