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, default to Keep. WaltonOne 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskel Spillman

[edit]
Miskel Spillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Guy whose claim to fame is winning the "Anyone can host" contest of Saturday Night Live in 1977. Expired prod with rationale

nn personality, only claim to fame is winning SNL contest, which can be mentioned on an SNL page

which does make some sense. However, given the cult-like status of SNL it may be that more can be said about this guy. In any case my opinion is that this should be merged to some appropriate SNL history page. Pascal.Tesson 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not as if I care deeply about the whole thing but these keeps have me scratching my head. What sort of hopes are we holding for this article? Currently it says "this grandmother got her 15 minutes of fame on November 19, 1977" and let's face it, this is all we will ever have. Why not merge it into a place that can put it in proper context? Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why merging and redirecting to the list of hosts and guests, thus preserving her story, is the way to go. Yes, she is a part of every book on SNL. A part that occupies perhaps a page at most, often either as part of a list of the hosts or in a brief summary description of the contest and episode. The other hosts are blue links because they are independently notable as actors, musicians, politicians, etc. Otto4711 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counterpoint; Isn't "merging and redirecting", in this case, erasing the entire article in the same manner as "deleting"? I don't believe that the list of hosts and guests has any level of detail to it, beyond a sentence or two, and thus it would not serve the function of "preserving her story". Let me throw another argument to consider... there have been 624 live broadcasts of SNL in its first 32 seasons, and, literally, hundreds of guest hosts. Would it be consistent to have one red link among the hundreds of blue links, simply because the person did not achieve further notoriety on television? Using the same reasoning, one could argue that Ron Goldman, who was not independently notable before June 12, 1994, and who did nothing thereafter, does not merit an article of his own. Mrs. Spillman is, arguably, more notable than Ann Risley, whose name that would not be recognized by many who do recognize "Miskel Spillman", even though Ann Risley appeared on multiple episodes of SNL. Mandsford 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Goldman example was a response to the argument that other persons were independently notable for more than one thing, though you have parried it well and thrown me off balance. I'll fall back on the other point, which is that it would be inconsistent to have an article about all SNL hosts except for one. If notability isn't at issue (i.e., it doesn't matter that more people have heard of X than of Y and a person need not have a second reason for notability, then is there a different reason for deletion? I think I've accomplished my purpose, which is to lengthen the debate to the point that it's more likely to be noticed by passers by. I think the fact of being part of every book on SNL and achieving media coverage, even though not on the scale of Goldman, indicates that Mrs. Spillman is article-worthy. Mandsford 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The People magazine "interview" isn't an interview. It is a long piece on the entire history of the show to date, and Spillman's "interview" is the last paragraph, consisting in its entirety of Miskel Spillman, 92, stands alone in the annals of SNL history. Beating out 150,000 other entrants in the 1977 Anyone Can Host essay contest, the New Orleans grandmother is the only nonceleb to ever host SNL. "I'm 80 years old, she wrote. "I need one more cheap thrill, since my doctor told me I only have another 25 years left." Twelve years after her cheap thrill (in which, among other things, she posed as Belushi's girlfriend) Spillman still tunes into the show. "I love the current cast, especially that fella in the dress," she says referring to Carvey's Church Lady. I take naps in the afternoon so that I can stay up. I'd love to host again," she adds. "I have 13 more years left, you know." Why the list article can't read something like "New Orleans grandmother Spillman beat out 150,000 entrants to win the show's first and only 'Anyone Can Host' contest" which covers the same territory as the separate article is mystifying to me. A lot of the arguments for keeping here seem based in "everyone else has an article" which is not a valid reason for her to have one. Otto4711 15:08, 16 August 2007 (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.
More