Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five-Timers Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 leaning toward keep, so keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Five-Timers Club

Five-Timers Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - one-time sketch with a few throwaway references over the course of several years. No reliable sources establish that this fake "club" has any real-world notability or indeed any real importance within the SNL "universe." All of the "potential members" speculation violates WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep has had some cultural impact, though the article fails to demonstrate that. JJL (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJL. It is an opening routine that has been repeated so often that it's now expected when a host makes a specific number of SNL appearances. The article needs some more citations, however. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That fans might expect the gag may offer some insight on its in-universe stature but it does not in any way establish any out-of-universe notability. Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the "in-universe, out-of-universe" argument. Is Saturday Night Live an alternate reality? I thought it was a variety show. Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A sketch is a work of fiction and the club is non-existent. Articles about works of fiction have to establish the real-world notability of the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more references are provided to show that this is a notable concept. As it is, the list of who does and doesn't qualify is arguably original research. Terraxos (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't agree on WP:OR at first but upon further reflection I see the concerns. For one thing, I thought the term was only applied to hosts and wouldn't have applied it to bands. There are also some in-universe elements (e.g. the handshake description). Nonetheless, I still say keep and edit. Here are some references to it: [1] ("There's a recurring skit on "Saturday Night Live" about the "Five Timers Club"."[...]"The "Favre Backup Club" could quite very well be the NFL equivalent to the "Five Timers Club"."), [2] (an NBC affiliate's slideshow on the "club"), [3] (note thet the Club wasn't in this show--it's a spontaneous reference to it), [4] (apparently it was #22 on E!'s list of top SNL moments). Note also how prominently it's used to sell SNL videos and other material by members of the (fictional) Club. It seems to be in adequately wide use. JJL (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A perfectly justifiable fork for SNL of most-frequent hosts, and the fact that it has a name and is a frequent in-show self-reference only cements notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And the independent reliable sources that establish notability are...?
  • Those sites establish the existence of the sketch. They do not establish the slightest bit of notability. And given that they both include "SNL" in the name, there is the question as to whether there is any affiliation with NBC which would make them non-independent. Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop me if I'm wrong, but didn't you argue that there was "No reliable sources" to establish that the article has "any real importance within the SNL universe?" Well, if that is the issue, as you framed it, then clearly the article does because the article was created to highlite the process which the show uses to recognize the various hosts and musical guest who have frequently participated in hosting the show. If you had seriously read the http://snlmusic.parshaparts.com/snlmusic.php link, then you would know that the link was never offered as a site to establish the existence of the sketch, but rather it was offered as concrete evidence of data used for the statistics charts on the article's page. Moreover, if you had read the links, you would know that they were in fact independent from NBC and they are independent sources. In short the article is suppose to be considered as a fork of the greater SNL article in the say light as the article on Weekend Update, Wayne's World or the Coneheads and if you are going to attack the notability of this article, then you have to attack the notability of those articles as well. (Deej30 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Stop. You're wrong. As has been stated time and time again, existence does not equal notability. Much of the rest of your comment makes little sense. Ad for copmparing this article to any other SNL-related article, it's an invalid argument per WP:WAX. The existence of any other SNL article has absolutely zero bearing on the existence of this article. And even if it did, the idea that this throwaway sketch should have an article because, for instance, the Wayne's World franchise (which has two feature films...how many feature films are there about the fake five-timer's club? oh yeah, none) does is ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse you... you're wrong. I quoted YOUR own words and refuted them. If my arguments make no sense, then the issue which YOU presented makes no sense. The article has information showing notability (i.e. the cultural reference section and the listed references in the footnotes) outside AND inside the SNL universe. I and others in this discussion have proven that the SNL Five Timer's Club is not a "throw away sketch" and that it has notibility and that it has had an influence in other areas of entertainment like the NFL and cable television. You are also wrong about the use of other sketches and concepts which are related to SNL. OFCOURSE Wayne's World and Weekend Update have nothing to do with the "existence" of the Five Timer's article, and it wasn't offered for that reason... and you know it wasn't. They were offered to show that the Five Timer's Club article serves a similar purpose and/or function like Weekened Update or Wayne's World. Using YOUR analysis, Weekend Update should be considered a "fictional" fake news show "within the SNL universe." Well the Five Timer's Club, again according to you, is a "fake club," which is also inside the SNL universe. Legitimate and independent sources have been offered as cultural references concerning the Weekend Update article and similar legitimate and independent sources have been offered concerning the Five Timer's Club article. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to present articles of notibility, then the Five Timer's Club article does not go against that mandate anymore than the Weekend Update article. The article also provides insight and a history (via detailed statistical data organized from legitimate sources) on the hosts and musical guest of the show. I believe it to be a noteworthy article and if there is a problem with the format, then all of US should be working together to correct the percieve weaknesses of the article, improve the display (perhaps merge it with another article), and improve the quality by adding additional sources instead of making snappy remarks and arbitrarily advocating the article's deletion. It seems to me that that is the true beauty of Wikipedia... global community contribution. (Deej30 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
  • As stated in my vote, this is a perfectly acceptable fork of SNL. I have added a source that refers to Christopher Walken's "membership" in the club, and I will add more. There is clearly no issue with Saturday Night Live hosts (an article that overlaps this one and should be a merge candidate in one direction or the other) as a fork of the main SNL article, and there is real-world reliable support for the title per se. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That some writer mentioned in passing, in a larger profile of Walken, the fictional five-timers club, does not constitute "significant coverage." Otto4711 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is perfectly justifiable part of SNL History and indeed ARE of real importance within the SNL "universe." . Moreover, the sources ARE reliable and the reasons given for its deletion are PURELY subjective. The fact that it has a name and is a frequent in-show self-reference only highlights its notability. The article clearly states that the "Five Timer's Club" is a running gag that has appeared in SNL consistently throughout the years. If the standard was to keep articles that has no real-world notability, then why not delete the page on Weekend Update, Wayne's World, or Mr. Bill? The section of on the "potential members" does not violates WP:CRYSTAL, because it is based on the fact that certain host & guest have appeared for a certain number of times and are close to membership in the five time category. Deej30 (Deej30 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete - No evidence of notability is presented in the article. No independent reliable sources are given and so far no one has given any indication that significant coverage by such sources exists. Additionally a lot of the article appears to be covered - or could be adequately covered - in Saturday Night Live hosts. Guest9999 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, with all due respect, you are mistaken. There are independent and reliable CITED sources of notability {websites and articles) that recognize the SNL Five Timer's club as mark of distinction created by the show. For example, there are footnotes by Steve Martin, Christopher Walken and Tom Hanks' names on the chart. These foot notes prove thaat significant coverage has been given to the Five Timers Club "outside" the "SNL Universe". (Deej30 (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (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.