Talk:Larry the Lobster (Saturday Night Live sketch)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Notability

Editor "A Link to the Past" questions the notability of Larry the Lobster, saying the "article is not long enough" and that [I] "cannot just remove [his/her] template." I have countered by pointing out that the subject has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, and changed national telecommunications policy since the early 1980s. S/he has never responded. S/he has never posted on the discussion page. Please, Mr./Ms. "Link to the Past," tell us why you think the article needs to be longer, and why you think these sources, and the others cited, are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Also, Mr/Ms. "Link to the Past," please share why you think other editors can not remove a notability template. Do you believe that only the editor who inserts the template in the first place is allowed to remove it? Uucp 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll just copy the general notability guidelines here:

== General notability guideline == A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. "Sources" should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article.

So, discussion on which points are covered? Bladestorm 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We have coverage from The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, and other sources, all of which are reliable secondary sources, independent of Saturday Night Live. These articles have been appearing over a period of 25 years. As noted in the text of the article, Larry the Lobster has also led to a change in national telecommunications policy at U.S. television networks, for the last 25 years. That the articles in question meet the tests listed above will in most cases be clear from the citations alone, though "A Link to the Past" may want additional proof of the fact that these articles deal with the subject "directly and in detail," in which case I am glad to provide copies to prove the point. It seems to me that this article sails through the notability test. Uucp 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability seems established to me. The article length is fine to. It would be nice to have the episode number and air date, perhaps the skit's writer, if known. Was the "900" number toll free? It'd be great to have a screen grab, too.

Actually it's a nice little article. --Knulclunk 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The USA Today article from the late 1980s implies that it was a "pay for" call but does not say so explicitly. If I find any additional information, I'll add it. Uucp 12:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, this discussion's been up for two days, with no counter-arguments made. Link's been on at least a couple times during that time, but let's give him a bit more time.
If no arguments against notability have been made after another day, I don't see a problem with removing the tag. (But it should stay up until then so people can know that it is currently still disputed) Bladestorm 18:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. If anybody believes it should be reinstated, please discuss your reasoning here on the talk page first.- Hal Raglan 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)