Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien 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. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Few sources, no demonstration of notability. Why are these sketches notable and why do we need a list of them? Popcornduff (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Popcornduff (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sketches are an important part of Conan O'Brien's former talk shows Late Night with Conan O'Brien and The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. Abstrakt (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , but nothing in the article indicates their importance or notability. Popcornduff (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Plausible content fork of Late Night. p  b  p  04:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you not concerned that almost nothing in the article is cited and there is no indication of these sketches' individual notability? I notice since adding your vote you have added more uncited original research to the article - why? Popcornduff (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you badgering everybody who votes keep? Also, for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable.  p  b  p  21:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry that I appear to be badgering you, and I was conscious that it might come across that way when I responded. I decided to go ahead anyway because I find the two responses to this nom so far surprising - they don't seem to be responding to the problems I raised (lack of sources and no demonstration of notability). That is why I'm challenging you.
 * I do not think the burden is on the nominator to prove something is not notable. It's tough to prove a negative. Instead we have to agree that the notability can be demonstrated per WP:GNG. Picking some of the sketches at random, I can't find any independent reliable sources covering them at all, let alone the sketches "as a collective" as you put it. Popcornduff (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Send it to ConanWiki: this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia, and an excellent level of detail for Wikia. I can add the content to Wikia if needed, with URL attribution (maybe even a list of editors). As for what happens to the page here, well, until someone starts showing us some reviews of individual sketches then it's a delete from me. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Gonnym, I'm striking the delete and replacing it with a keep, but I believe the list does need rewriting from scratch, with us only including sketches covered by reliable secondary sources. I also believe the rest of the content is a good fit for Wikia and I'll look at adding it there, whether or not the content is kept here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , if this article is kept, is anyone who votes keep going to rewrite it from scratch? It's been in a dire state for over a decade, tagged, with no improvement - and in fact since I nominated it for deletion, one of the keep voters has added more original research, which I personally find amazing. I think this is a WP:JUNK situation: Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of notable subjects. We don't need to keep an article with no merit in itself just because it might, theoretically, be possible to make a good article on the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have really overstepped the line into badgering here. Do not ping me again in this discussion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, sorry to have gone too far there. Popcornduff (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the state of the article isn't good, however I believe this is an essentinal part of the show. I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. There is a reason I and others like me, rather read here. Now for the notability part. It's kind of hard asking to get online(!) sources for something 20 years ago, however here are a few I found in 10 minutes of searching:, , , , , , , . Sure, not the best sources, some might not be valid RS, but again, we are talking about a sub-topic of something that was 20 years ago. I'm also sure there are more RS dealing with this subject in print from the time. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , for this to meet WP:GNG, we have to see that enough individual sketches have had coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. If these sources can be found then great, but you seem to suggest here that they can't. You might find the information personally interesting or useful but WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument. Popcornduff (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We disagree on how WP:GNG relates to sub-topics as the policy is mute on the topic. See for instance WP:NNC which says that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Now if this list was part of the main article, your augment about GNG would be irrelevant. However, merging it into the main article will lead to a bad user-experience, which is why we split long articles. I also don't think finding the sources is immpossible, just not something that can be found in AfD. That is probably more serious research and finding actual hard print papers. That said, finding sources which aren't the top of the RS food chain that do talk about it, you can find enough. I'll probably not comment again in this topic, so no point in pining me anymore. Also, while WP:INTERESTING isn't a great argument (and wasn't my primary one either), nor is "send it to Wikia". --Gonnym (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gonnym, no problem if you don't want to contribute further. However, I don't think "send it to Wikia" was an argument for deleting it here. Bilorv instead said we should delete it as "this is an inordinate level of detail for Wikipedia". The Wikia idea was just a good-faith suggestion for how this WP:INTERESTING information could be rehomed elsewhere on the web. Popcornduff (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand the "send to Wikia" argument. If I'd wanted to read something on Wikia and get spammed with ads, I'd go there. You're free to go wherever you want, but my reasoning is that (a) this content is not suitable for Wikipedia and (b) it would be a shame to delete it when it's clearly an enjoyable resource to some. Now you've added some sources, keeping the article looks plausible to me, but it would need to be absolutely blown up per our policies that Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, and that we're not a place for indiscriminate info (which lists "Summary-only descriptions of works" as its first example, and that's exactly what this list is). — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , personally, I do not think there are sources out there sufficient to create an article just for these sketches, even post WP:TNT. Yes, there are these bits of coverage like "best sketches" here and there on reliable sources, but they don't add up to a body of work where it's like "we simply cannot cover these sufficiently without their own page". Notable sketches can be covered where appropriate on articles about the shows themselves (such as Late Night with Conan O'Brien). Popcornduff (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your perspective but after a bit of reflection, I disagree. Gonnym has shown to my satisfaction that there are enough sources for a stand-alone list—though the articles about the shows should definitely have critical reception in them—but that list should only cover sketches with secondary source coverage, not the enormous list there is at present. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I getcha, but the problem with that is the article is called "List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches" which implies a degree of comprehensiveness - it would be a bit odd if it only comprised the handful of sketches we can find sources for, when there have been hundreds and hundreds of them - and it invites endless dumping of cruft (see the current article). Popcornduff (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Many lists have titles with similar implications e.g. List of Russians. An "endless dumping of cruft" describes the whole of WP:TV, really, but the solution is editor maintenance. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, fair enough. I remain skeptical that there is enough meat on the bones of these RSs to justify much coverage of the sketches though. Popcornduff (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . The sources he identified indicate notability, and I suspect they only begin to scratch the surface of what's available upon a wider search. — Hunter Kahn 02:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: WOW! The article has been tagged since 2008-09 which includes an WP:OR tag. The state of the article is horrendous. A problem I have (there are really more than one) is that many of the "Keep" !votes, such as "an important part of Conan O'Brien's former talk shows", or "Plausible content fork of Late Night" are not remotely policy or guideline based. The one argument listing references, so more valid, is provided by, that has swayed at least two other editors.
 * The selection criteria includes "... and supported by reliable sources" and "... it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.". The article was created without using any episodes (only a few tagged with ) and everything from the "Late Night sketches appearing on Tonight" section to the "Coked up Werewolf" subsection of the "Late Night sketches" section is unsourced.
 * The first source provided here is titled The 20 best Conan O'Brien late-night bits. The top 10 certainly has coverage and the "Masturbating Bear" could likely have a stand alone article. While I tend to think there is notability for "a list" (sub-topic) somewhat like this, "this list" has an issue with notability especially considering the criteria that includes sourcing.
 * This is not really complicated. The tags from 2008-09 mean that some attention is long overdue. If it is kept, as it appears it could be, will it be on a future AFD list? If it remains as "keep as is" it likely will be. Even if the provided extra sources are vetted and "all" are found reliable, that will not put a dent in the unsourced material. The policy on original research states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" and that is hard to disprove with the immense unsourced content. At a point something should be done. Currently it appears the list fails Stand-alone lists, and Stand-alone lists. The "tipping point" may very well be it needs completely rewritten, because "the damage is beyond fixing", and possibly limited to something like the "twenty" that is sourced. I do agree with Gonnym that there maybe more sources "out there" but that is not really a good enough reason to keep such an large mostly unsourced list article (especially considering the tags) that flies in the face of several policies and guidelines.
 * There is also a fallacy: "...for this to fail GNG, you have to prove that the COLLECTIVE concept of sketches are not notable.", is simply a non-true statement. The "collective concept of sketches" is not even a consideration. WP:GNG is concerning an individual topic, AND-- it is still "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". Otr500 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there are several keep votes, several other folks have commented what seem to be delete votes, without actually stating their position. One should hope an extra week will give them time to write a vote down.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN. Information for our readers. Too long for any merge. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.