Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien

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 to do anything, really. What a mess. My first reaction after reading the participators' comments here is that these really should be listed separately, as the articles are not even about the same franchise/show and some confusion is apparent in the comments. There is no strong consensus to delete any of them, but the strongest case of deletion is made for List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. That one should be relisted. The consensus on the first two is leaning towards keeping, but I wouldn't be opposed to a new, separate nomination for either of them. For now, marking #1 (Sketches) and #2 (Headlines) as keep (and clean), and I'm marking "List of guests" as no consensus/relist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien

Fancruft article, non-encyclopedic. Also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons. "Headlines" and "List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien" also fancruft.

Delete all Unsourced fancruft, indiscriminate info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Just a list of descriptions of TV sketches. No information given on why they are important. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately. I think at least the first two could be salvaged, with some effort. Let people judge each of them separately. And come up with stronger deletion arguments. It's simplistic to just say, "Cruft, unencylopedic," especially when independent sources do exist to verify much of this content (see this New York Times article on the Horny Manatee, for starters). Zagalejo^^^ 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't think this list as a separate article should exist. Some of the sketches like you said are notable. Like Triumph The Insult Comic Dog. But the list itself shouldn't have its own article IMO. At best merge it back into the article about the show. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first two, Neutral on the third. These seem valid as articles, but they badly need cleaned up. The first needs sourced better, with unsourced entries removed. The second is deserving of an article but is almost entirely synthesis; cut it down to remove these. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Headlines piece and list the merged segment on the dab page for "Headlines." The "Headlines" segment on Tonight has become quite notable in its own right, but I wouldn't have a problem with it being folded into a section of the article on the show, so long as there existed a redirect to alert people who are looking for it (as I was, just now) to the right place for info.Lawikitejana (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "Sketches on Conan" article (see also Sketches on Letterman for a precedent), Merge the "Headlines" article and Delete the "List of guests" article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but I agree the nomination is weak (although these are crufty 'tis true). I don't see how these are justified by WP:SPINOUT and there is no assertion of any importance or significance of these topics outside the world of the particular show itself - which is where this information should be covered. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All! This is similar to an episode guide, which is not considered fancruft. 206.41.234.41 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of this discriminate, verfiable, and notable material that appears both on multiple notable shows and in numerous compilation publications as well that could probably even be expanded with additional searches for reviews. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.240.222 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a debate, not a poll! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you can't find 1000 refs about this, you can certainly find 100. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Poorly written but I see no reason why these articles should be deleted. Passes the WP:Pokémon test test. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien" Really? Pretty much anybody remotely famous with a movie to plug has appeared on Late Night. This is completely unmaintable. Neutral "Headlines (The Tonight Show)" does not establish notability at the moment, but it probably could. Delete "Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien" Pure cruft, and besides "Horny Manatee", compeletly unsourced. The Pokemon test is outdated now, since only 4 Pokemon have thier own article. --Phirazo 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep O'Brian sketches article; Merge headlines article if a suitable merge candidate is available (keep until then); Keep and improve list of guests article (at a minimum, what what episodes & dates they appeared on should be added).--Father Goose (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From Academic Search Complete, I came across Wil B. Strange, "Strange World," Campus Life 53.4 (Nov94): 78. Anyway, the abstract reads, "Offers information on various strange items....Personal ads from the book `Jay Leno's Headlines'". Because the headlines segment appears both on the show and on compilation books, I would have to reckon reviews exist that can be used to expand that article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't expect a whole lot of rigor from "Wil B. Strange". Who's his coauthor, I.P. Freely? --Phirazo 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list of guests. The list is, indiscriminate, unsourced and fancruft. Individual guests aren't the central feature of the show. This isn't like Saturday Night Live hosts/List of Saturday Night Live episodes, where the guest hosts have the entire show (sketches, monologue, and advertising) designed specifically for their appearance. The latter article also doubles as a list of TV episodes, which is permissible under WP:TV. --Madchester (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: considering that published reviews exist for the shows that address the sketches and that the headlines have been sold in multiple books for which reviews are also likely to exist, there's no real reason to delete the articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list of guests is unsourced. A list of episodes including guests might be notable (nbc used to have a list at least in part, which I still have a copy of - don't know if they still have that list). But a mass listing of just names seems fairly pointless. The sketch list is more notable, but still mainly a fansite thing. Sketches notable enough to make news references could support an article about a few of the most famous sketches, but not an unenforced list of every sketch. (Clutch Cargo is a commonly referenced one). The notable sketches could be a subsection in the Late Night article. To the Headlines article, it's more notable a topic, but I don't see it likely for there to be enough material to support an entire article. A subsection of the Tonight Show Leno article would suffice. TheHYPO (talk) 01:30, 15 May 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.