Talk:Schmitt's Gay

Schmitt's Gay was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE

Pretty funny Saturday Night Live sketch which parodies models in beer ads by presenting "the other gender." But I don't think every commercial parody on the show needs an individual article. Delete. Ian Pugh 15:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete. --jni 15:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It was a fantastic skit, one of the best they've ever done. It was a very detailed take-down of the sexism that Budweiser had been using, where wretched old ladies turned into supermodels when a fountain erupted with beer and spewed on them. However, as worthy and memorable, above almost all other SNL commercial parodies, it is, it's not encyclopedic in isolation. I hope someone writes it up in the section on commercial parodies in the SNL article (i.e. don't merge and delete). Geogre 18:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. When someone searches for "Schmitt's Gay", better to get this than to get nothing. anthony 警告 18:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. We are not google, and have no responsibility to have an article on everything. --Improv 20:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. One of THE classic SNL ad parodies, but still... Other alternative is merge/redir to SNL. Niteowlneils 20:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Didn't know about Saturday Night Live opening commercial--if the content is kept, refactor that from a list, to a description of the subject parodys, IE merge/redir all the ones that have articles and remove links for those that don't. If it gets too big in the future, particularly notable ones can be broken out. Niteowlneils 22:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abstain. Just noting that if we do decide to delete this, then someone needs to completely rework the entire Saturday Night Live opening commercial article, which is nothing but links to the most popular fake commercials, only a few of which exist. Also, do we decide to merge and delete the other ones which exist?
Don't delete it, it's fairly well-known and notable. Just merge and redirect to Saturday Night Live opening commercial. Everyking 01:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:13, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This sketch is no more or less notable than any of the other one-off sketches on Saturday Night Live, and if we had a page for all of them, there'd be 5,000 related pages. Pacian 19:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. --Falsifian 18:11, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Keep or merge/redirect —siro χ o 20:47, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Note that Saturday Night Live opening commercial's present "list of popular commercials" is POV -- popular by what standards? It should just be a List of Saturday Night Live opening commercials and list all SNL opening commercials ever (or more realistically: any that people can write coherently about). JRM 21:20, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the commercial list. -R. fiend 22:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Funny stuff, but not worth its own article. Indrian 06:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect It is a good commercial, and notable amongst SNL commercials, but we also shouldn't have articles about just everything. I think it would be more cohesive to have the single article on Saturday Night Live opening commercial contain info on the notable examples. Laura Scudder 06:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Truly one of the best "commercials" that SNL has ever done...but not the point. I was browsing the SNL entry the other day, and there are quite a few links to individual skits. I would vote for deletion if all these skits were brought together somewhere, but it seems hypocritical to delete this one when there are dozens of others out there. Deane 13:13, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Although I see Happy Fun Ball also exists. Terrapin 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball! —tregoweth 02:30, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Encyclopedic, relevant, factually accurate, verifiable. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)