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. Keeping ALL Nakon 02:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

History of Saturday Night Live (1975–80) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Redundant information (mostly cast lists and non-notable trivia) already presented at main Saturday Night Live article as well as the 40 season pages. I am also nominating the following:

History of Saturday Night Live (1980–85)

History of Saturday Night Live (1985–90)

History of Saturday Night Live (1995–2000)

History of Saturday Night Live (2000–05)

History of Saturday Night Live (2005–10)

History of Saturday Night Live (2010–present)

Completely arbitrary to chronicle television series by five-year increments rather than seasons, and the season pages encompass every episode and are better referenced anyway. No information would be lost if these pages are deleted. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 22:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- we have articles on each season and on the series as a whole. That is ample. The series article has a navbox linking to the quinennial articles as well as the season articles. This will need to be altered sothat the deletion does not result in a load of red links. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge with the appropriate season articles, since it seems like there's quite a bit of info on some of these pages that isn't in the appropriate season articles. (Of course, quite a lot of it needs referencing.) StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 11:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep, sort of - I can certainly see why you'd want to write more broadly themed articles like this, but certainly not in their current form. Why the five-year chunks? This would be much better if broken into four or five articles, covering the beginning, Ebersol era, the 90s, 2000s cast, and the current iteration. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 03:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- SNL is an important American tv show, & the behind-the-scenes events are worth explaining in extensive detail that would bog down the main article. Specifically, the program had a brilliant beginning, went thru several years of uneven quality, then recovered & become a solid late Saturday night feature for American audiences; a narrative of this evolution is a notable subject & worth doing. However, I'll repeat Ed's point that these articles need to be better organized, statements all over the articles need sourcing (although I've not encountered anything that is off-the-tracks wrong) & some of the information is too trivial for inclusion. In brief, while the subject matter is notable, in their current state the articles are of substandard quality. -- llywrch ( talk) 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment to address the recent keep votes: I don't think anyone is suggesting Saturday Night Live or its history or even content included in these articles is not notable. But that's why there are 40 (!) season articles, which more thoroughly (and more consistently with other WP:TV pages) document the history of SNL and are better sourced. Everything in these pages are redundant with those articles. The main objection here is the completely arbitrary 5-year increments (no one has taken a position defending those yet). I believe that if these articles aren't deleted, then merging them with the season articles adequately address the keep votes' concerns -- Wikipedical ( talk) 05:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, but those are very narrowly focused. There's a good argument for overall looks at wide swaths of the show's history, starting with the Not Ready For Primetime Players and coming through the present day. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 18:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps, but five-year increments are completely arbitrary. Saturday Night Live (season 1) through season 5 already contain the same text verbatim in the first "History" article. If you believe Not Ready For Primetime Players merits its own article, for example. sure, create it. But as it stands, these general "overview"/"history" articles are poorly sourced and inconsistent with the way we chronicle television on Wikipedia. Putting aside the show's early history for a moment, you really believe History of Saturday Night Live (2010–present) should be kept? -- Wikipedical ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Agree with argumentation and rationale by Llywrch, above. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 16:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I agree that some of the info on these pages is the same as things other pages (Cast lists, ect.), but it seems like it's there for easy comparison with the info unique to this page (Of which there's quite a bit). These pages seem to be more of a comparison to between seasons - a running history if you will. I do agree with Ed that the 5 year chunks don't really make sense. A lot of it needs further sourcing too, so it might be better to fix this before merging (If merging is an option.) so as not to compromise other articles. - samdod2427 22:03 18th February 2015 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdod2427 ( talk • contribs)
  • Merging with the better sourced season articles is definitely an option. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 03:36, 19 February 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.