Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

somewhat OR, redundant with barely notable SNL 5-Timers Club having it, fails WP:NOT in being an indiscriminate source of info, and doesn't need it's own page. Booshakla 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOT. "The following is a list of sorted tables" is not a promising way to start off an article. Krimpet 21:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per who gives a damn, no wait, that's not a good reason, per WP:NOT, WP:TRIV. Otto4711 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the following reasons:
 * WP:NOT is not applicable as this is obviously neither a "list of FAQs", a "travel guide", a "memorial", an "instruction manual", an "internet guide", a "textbook", a "plot summary", or a "lyrics database".
 * This is not OR as all of the information can be sourced either from SNL records, news articles, or (failing all else) the show itself (a primary source).
 * WP:TRIV is a more serious argument, but one that I also believe is inapplicable here. This is not a mere collection of trivial facts, but rather provides information that can be used to determine what type of show SNL is (based on the identity of the people it hosts).  -- Black Falcon 08:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you keep arguing that WP:NOT doesn't apply to these sorts of things. You know as well as I do that the list there is not exhaustive and arguing to keep something because it's not on the list is disingenuous at best. As for this being a helpful guide to the sort of show that SNL is, what specifically does this article tell us about the sort of show SNL is based on the identity of its hosts? Otto4711 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto, if it's not on the list of the 8 items, then it cannot be used. If we claim that it is not "exhaustive", then I could make an equally valid argument that WP:NOT for biographies of heads of state.  How are you going to argue against that?  After all, the list isn't exhaustive... .  WP:NOT is a policy and, as such, should only include what consensus has determined should be excluded.  Neither you nor I constitute consensus.  We have to act based on what's on the list, and none of the 8 things there cover this.  -- Black Falcon 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the list of 8 would expressly forbid List of blue things but there's not a chance in hell it would withstand a challenge on the grounds of WP:NOT. Clearly the eight consensed items are violations but there is nothing in the language of WP:NOT that says those are the only eight things that can be considered indiscriminate collections of information. Otto4711 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. List of blue things would fall under WP:NOT rather than WP:NOT.  According to your claim, my hypothetical argument that WP:NOT for presidential biographies is perfectly valid.  After all, it doesn't mean anything if it's not on the list list.  If it's not listed there, that means there is no consensus for it, and you cannot cite that policy.  If you hold a personal belief that this is indiscriminate, you may (quite validly) note that, but please don't reference the policy.  That's just plain misleading.  -- Black Falcon 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the vast number of articles that have been deleted as indiscriminate collections without having their article type explicitly named in the Big 8, given that there is not a single word in the policy that can reasonably be interpreted as making the Big 8 definitive and given that under the simple rationale of basic common sense a presidential biography is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's you who's being misleading by pretending that IINFO has no possible application here. Otto4711 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it has no possible application. What I'm saying is that is has no application grounded in policy.  One can make a very compelling argument that something or another is indiscriminate, but no matter how fantastic that argument is, unless it's one of the Big 8, it's not grounded in policy and should not consist of a simple, unexplained link to WP:NOT.  I intend to review my position in light of Mangojuice's comment that this article is semi-redundant, but until an actual argument is made as to why this is indiscriminate (except "who gives a damn"), I cannot see WP:NOT as applicable.  -- Black Falcon 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not certain which deleted articles you're referring to, but I should note that I supported deletion in most of the "in popular culture" and other related nominations (although often for reasons other than WP:NOT). -- Black Falcon 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Five-Timers Club is notable, worth writing about. This article is somewhat redundant with that one, but also includes a table of ex-cast members who have hosted, politicians who have hosted, sports figures who have hosted, and so on.  We don't need any of those arbitrary subclasses, and I see nothing in the title that would prevent more from being added.  We do have List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests, with all the information in this article available, just not distilled in random ways.  Leave a redirect in place, but I say delete: the Five Timer's Club article is already complete, the history here will not be helpful.  Mango juice talk 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Blackfalcon. Also per WP:LIST - information and navigation.  Redundancy is not a reason to delete. - Peregrine Fisher 10:59, 8 March 2007 (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.