Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saturday Night Live Number 466

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 05:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live Number 466
Same reasons as the Votes for Deletion for episode 548 and the one for 364: non-notable, useless, unencyclopedic. /s&#618;zl&#230;k &#762;/  09:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Comment. And just how much space will having every episode of SNL for the past 30 years take? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. See my reasoning at Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. Tygar 10:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samboy 10:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, covering every episode of SNL for the past 30 years will take up a negligible amount of space. Kappa 11:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into an article on each season. - SimonP 17:38, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the same reasons at Votes for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live episodes. DaveTheRed 19:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saturday Night Live episodes are not like episodes of dramas or sitcoms. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 19:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable as an individual episode. Megan1967 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've never seen an article use so many words to say absolutely nothing. "Action 8 News Watch: Anchorpeople and reports make references to stories coming up at "later in" or "at the end of" the hour." WTF???? To those who take the stand that wikipedia should never delete any information, please explain to me how that qualifies as "information". -R. fiend 02:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - verifiable and of third-party interest - David Gerard 14:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, my reasoning is already expressed in the other SNL episode VfD entries. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting information not easily found elsewhere Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 14:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep; comments at Votes_for_deletion/Saturday_Night_Live_Number_548.
 * Keep: Information is verifiable, informative, and of interest to end users. &mdash;Caesura 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If anyone is even going to think about keeping this page it needs major work. It's written assuming the reader knows exactly who all the recurring characeters are, and most of the brief synopses are utterly uninformative. You know how sometimes a friend will try to tell you something really funny he saw on TV the other night, but screws it up so badly that it's not only unfunny but nonsensical? That's this article. I also wonder if this article is even accurate. There's an entry (a sketch I guess it's suppsoed to be) that only reads "1-800-EAT-SHIT". It says absolutely nothing, and is very possibly a prank. You can't say "shit" on TV, even after 11:30. A few hundred other articles written like this would be a travesty for wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)