Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land of Gorch

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. Consensus is for article retention. Also, the nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in a later comment, stating "sure" about the notion of withdrawal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Gorch[edit]

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

I did the best I could do: the sources I found and added, that's all there is in ten pages of Google results. At best this deserves a paragraph in the article for the first season of SNL; by itself it's not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It was a good sketch in Season 1 of Saturday Night Live. The Muppet characters in this sketch were heavily praised and even made a cameo in "The Rainbow Connection" finale of The Muppet Movie. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you need reliable sources to prove these statements. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saturday Night Live (season 1). I found a few other book sources - I think there's enough there overall to mention it in the SNL first season article - but overall I don't seen enough truly in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing lots of references, even if we just limit it to books and not other types of sources. More at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Have a great day, and remember to spend some time outside, in the fresh air, and take in the wonders of nature, — Cirt (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agreed, there is little here that justifies anything more than a section in the SNL first season article -- if that. Yes, it was a "good sketch" -- but from a WP paradigm, so what? All parties involved quickly realized that it was a poor fit for the show, and the concept was abandoned. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of references easily available to perform a Quality improvement project on this article. Loads of examples, at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with guideline WP:NPOSSIBLE that an article's quality or length or it not using available sources is not a reason to delete. While certainly any article within these pages could be whittled down and eventually merged somewhere else, that does not BUILD an encyclopedia. While AFD not intended to force improvements, I believe in WP:SEP and in my attempts improving this project for its readers (and I've had some small successes doing so) I would far rather improve something myself or seek other's help in improving if I have weaknesses. I look beyond present state and instead look toward WP:POTENTIAL. This topic, spoken of in |more-than-trivial manner in numerous sources (thank you Cirt, for always looking beyond an AFD template's fallible "Find sources") is notable per guideline. We improve that which is improvable, for even in its admitting it is itself imperfect, deletion does not always improve a growing Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Please note -- I've expanded the page with sourced material, and improved its quality greatly. Please visit this updated version of the article to evaluate whether this article should be kept or not on Wikipedia. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.~~ — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this pointer, since the subject of the article is only peripherally related to NYC. BMK (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live has been an integral part of the culture of New York City, per Saturday Night Live (season 27). But no worries, won't post there again, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massively improved. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's much better now; sometimes a Sword of Damocles provides the necessary stimulus for improvement. I still don't think this sort of subject matter fits under the category of "encyclopedic", but others clearly do -- so, fine - keep it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DoctorJoeE:, thank you for acknowledging "Yes, it's much better now". Since you've changed your view to "so, fine - keep it" -- will you please strike your "Merge" comment, above? — Cirt (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't changed my mind so much as yielded to majority opinion, but I have stricken the comment. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY, and kudos to Cirt for his work. Someone ping the nom and see if he wants to withdraw this. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Per request, above to ping the nom, made by Jclemens. And my thanks to Jclemens for the kind words about my recent Quality improvement efforts. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully sourced article and notable topic. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2015 (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.