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. An almost overwhelming consensus to keep here. There are contentions from a couple of users that there are no sources, or that there are sources but that they are of an insufficient quality, however these views do not seem to have found wide support amongst participants in the discussion. It should also be noted that the article has been significantly expanded since nomination, with the addition of many new references. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise[edit]

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not that notable a sketch. I went through seven pages of Google hits and all I found was this, this, and this. Now, there is also this book, published by UP of Mississippi by a moderately known scholar of American popular culture--but that's the only "real" source to claim it's one of SNL's most popular sketches, so I'm not all that impressed with it. So, at best we have one published source and a few mentions, nothing more than mentions. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just have to alter search parameters to find loads of sources. Examples: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP per being one of the most notable (and funniest) of the Saturday Night Live sketches ever, by its incorporating as a comedy device one of the most notable franchises ever. Indeed, while what was first nominated might have been seen as not in-depth or well sourced enough, what we now have is a well-sourced, incisive article that serves Wikipedia and its readers. Sorry Drmies, but while your original evaluation might have had merit, the topic is now shown as definitely notable. Kudos to Cirt for his diligence in expanding his search parameters and for efforts in fixing this one up. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
• Update: I have significantly performed a great amount of effort on research and writing for a Quality improvement project on this article. Please see this version of the article and assess its quality and whether or not this version after my Quality improvement efforts should be deleted from Wikipedia. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by the details in the article as a result of the expansion. The Woodward book is an especially meaty source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saturday Night Live (season 1). While I appreciate that someone has put significant work into this piece recently, I have to agree with Drmies that it's just not that notable. It's already mentioned in the SNL first season article, and I think there is sufficient source material to expand that reference somewhat; but I don't see enough truly in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant its own article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos to Cirt for their work. I was ready to withdraw, but while the article looks very impressive I'm still not that convinced. The AV club references, for instance--the one is totally shallow, the other has just one paragraph on our subject. Erik, you say that the Woodward source is "meaty", but at closer inspection it's really not that substantial: it's a biography of Belushi, who played the main part, so I suppose we can expect coverage--but it's hardly in-depth. It has three short sentences on the background, a paragraph on the rehearsal, and a summary of the skit, but no discussion of its effect or popularity or anything like that. So even while Dunne, cited once, says "one of SNL's most famous sketches", I still see not much evidence for that. I mean, CNN and the AV Club and Dunne as well claim it is, but it sounds as if there's some parroting going on here. So I still think a merge is the best solution. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant coverage is one of the criteria, and that is less stringent than "in-depth" coverage, which is not in the general guidelines. I say "meaty" in the sense that the Woodward book addresses the skit directly and in detail, even if it is not the main topic, being its own chapter or section. This and the other sources come together to be an article that I don't find worth merging elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  DoctorJoeE, the appropriate guideline is WP:SIGCOV, which states, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It has a footnote that says a one-sentence mention of a band in a President's biography is "plainly trivial". Surely the sources here address the topic directly even if it is not always the main topic in the material. In addition, merging to Saturday Night Live (season 1) would only swamp that article with details of only one skit. Per WP:SPINOFF, "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." I hope you'll consider this. A lot of good detail has been added here that cannot really be merged elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  So what you are essentially saying is that the article has become too long to merge -- in the same sense that the bank conglomerates were "too big to fail" when the housing bubble burst. Again, I understand that a lot of effort has been expended, and I'd hate to see that go to waste; but I still don't see enough "significant coverage" to satisfy notability guidelines and justify keeping it as a standalone article. Consensus seems to be drifting the other way, though. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, it appears based on these threaded comments, above, that perhaps some from this AFD have yet to revisit the expansion and great deal of effort I've put into further research to improve the quality of this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination had merit when first placed, but the article has been completely overhauled since then and now demonstrates notability. Miyagawa (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic and sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject rockets across the verifiability and notability thresholds. (I sense snow in the forecast.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article displays a clear merit for notability. Z105space (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voters keep saying that there is "clear merit" and "easily passes notability guidelines" -- but saying so doesn't make it so, and so far, nobody is offering any new source material to support that contention; and the old material, as Drmies demonstrated above, doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. I thought the sketch was funny too, but it's hardly immortal material. All of that said, I don't really care; keep the article if you want -- but this sort of subject matter is hardly "encyclopedic" by any definition that I'm aware of, and IMHO won't stand even the most liberal test of time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article in its current improved and expanded state addresses Themes, addresses Reception, and notes that many different sources call it one of the best sketches of all time. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is notable, and Cirt has managed to find many sources for this (maybe not from now, because this was 40 years ago, but if you use JSTOR, sources quickly pop up). Epic Genius (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because I'm drawing 0 hits on JSTOR. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe I should look at it myself... Epic Genius (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sigh, not every single source is going to refer to the subject by its exact specific name. You have to alter your search parameters and not be so stringent. For example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. And DoctorJoeE, I have added even more new source material since your comments, perhaps you haven't revisited the article lately. Examples: The New Yorker, and The Hollywood Reporter, and Rolling Stone. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've swapped out a few sources in the lede, so that now it better explains why the topic is notable, per WP:LEAD. Specifically: Chicago Sun-Times called it "brilliant". Los Angeles Times called it one of the top ten best sketches of all time. Tulsa World called it "iconic". The New Yorker said "Belushi was perfect." The Hollywood Reporter interviewed Tom Hanks who said it was in the top five best sketches of all time. Rolling Stone placed it among Belushi's most memorable performances. Please see this version of the article for a comprehensive sourced presentation of the main aspects of the topic. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the most notable parodies of ST:TOS ever made. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced and in depth article. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was made before I was born and I knew about it before seeing the article. It is one of the great works of comedy. Personal preferences aside there seems to be plenty of sources to establish notability and to support a proper article. HighInBC 02:16, 11 October 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.