Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

Add links
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 of the debate was keep the truthiness to those in power.  RasputinAXP  c 04:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

[edit]

OK, now a few things to mention first. One: the editors who have put this page together have done a good job, and should be congratualted for it. It is nicely laid out, and well referenced. But please do not consider the quality of the article; at AFD we must consider whether or not the subject of the article is encyclopaedic with regards only to the deletion policy. Two: this is not a "bad faith nom"; I said I would do this when it was at WP:FAC because I want to see what other people think. I think this page is an important example of what is currently happening a lot on Wikipedia: short-term (often US-centric) phenomenon that get extensive pages, with almost all web-based sources, because they are recent and well-covered. However, I think we should resort to ten year test (I would prefer one hundred, but I am willing to be disagreed with). Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years? It was a comedian, doing a comedy routine. That happens all the time. It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care. Thus I urge a delete. This could act as a litmus for a whole lot of other pages, so please think hard, vote wisely (whichever way you vote), and let's have a nice, harmonious discussion. Batmanand | Talk 09:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tricky one this. A well put argument from Batmanand which goes to the heart of what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and from that definition this type of article doesn't fit, this is a news article and not a encyclopedia entry. However, perhaps part of the joy of wikipedia is that the articles can go beyond what is normal strict encyclopedia content, the impact of a slightly out-of-place article may be felt insignificant due to the format of wikipedia. But, then where do you draw the line? There have to be firm rules. So, after much consideration, I vote delete. This is an event which gives a good news story, but it is not an encyclopedic article. I know there are lots of other comparable topics on here that have not been deleted, but that is not an argument to keep this one. As Batmanand states, each article must be considered only against the deletion policy. Well done Batmanand, you've raised a good topic. Kcordina Talk 10:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I repect Batmanand's argument, but I think this is a well written and well referenced article on a verifiable and notable topic. It's a keeper -- Samir धर्म 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the topic is notable, but information about it is already given on the Stephen Colbert page, which is where researchers would ordinarily go to. Would any significant information be lost if this article were to go? Vizjim 11:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or it should be merged to Stephen Cobert page. This was an important event considering the current political climate. Vegalo 10:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WikiNews story, not an encyclopedia entry. It's a news event in one country out of over 200, and the precedent that articles like this set is difficult. I appreciate that Wikipedia is not paper, and can accomodate a near-infinite amount of information. However, at some point editors have to exercise judgement and selectivity. This raw mass of citations and data should have been placed within the Stephen Colbert article, and pruned down massively to take account of the ten year test. I agree with Batmanand where he says "It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care." A record could still be kept, but on the Colbert pages (and maybe on the Bush page, as a small footnote, and as an anecdote on the White House Correspondents Association Dinner article).Vizjim 10:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally I would vote merge but given the length and detail of this article I support spinning it off in to it's own article. As for Batmanand's argument, I agree that in future peeople will be less interested in it but I'm not sure that should be a reason to delete it. It is a notable subject now but in the future it won't cease to have been a notable event it will just cease being a notable event. Pretty much the same as any current event. Ydam 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with applause. Well put. For one thing, keeping articles like this for extended periods of time is US-centric bias, and should not be allowed to flourish unfettered. To be frank, from where I'm sitting, topical jokes based on individual heads of state are nowhere near worthy of inclusion.--Agamemnon2 11:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notible and interesting subject. --ShaunMacPherson 11:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep various reasons - obviously notable event, at very least in the context of the colbert report because that one event shot up, at least initially, its ratings by 30%. Please do not delete. It is as it always was T | @ | C 11:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By point of fact, it just failed its first FAC. Batmanand | Talk 11:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the best articles here often fail FAC. This one was quite close. It is as it always was T | @ | C 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen here, it was not close at all. It did not receive one non-nom, non-anon support vote. Batmanand | Talk 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think that this performance will be very notable in a few months. Once the "OMG DID YOU SEE THAT?!" factor dies out in a bit, it will be memorable each correpondents' dinner as a litimus test: "Oh, he was funny, but not on the Colbert scale." It's just like the opening monologue of the Oscars or something, we don't have individual articles on each performance by an Oscars host, just mentions of it in their own articles. See Chris Rock and Jon Stewart. Metros232 12:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is the type of incident that would have merited a yearbook entry in the former World Book Encyclopedia. DL77 12:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The nub of the argument in favour of deletion is that, in the future, it will be non-notable. Clearly, the article on White House Correspondents' Associations contradicts this. If the event will be non-notable ten years after the event, why is it that the article notes that Al Fraken presented it ten years ago? Why, indeed, does it have more than just a name for Bill Clinton's bit in 2000 or Richard Nixon's in 1969? Surely, if it is non-notable, nobody would remember. That editors do remember (or have evidence of it) proves that it is notable, and will remain so into the future. Why it has a long article is quite another matter, but an article it must definitely should have. Bastin8 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the fact that Stephen Colbert was the speaker at this particular occasion is notable. The question is: why does this particular appearance deserve a separate article, instead of the usual few lines at White House Correspondents' Association, and a mention in his own article? Your examples, on this basis, surely only support my argument? Batmanand | Talk 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comparison to Nixon/Clinton/Franken was not a necessary condition of it deserving an article. However, you asked the question, "Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years?" Perhaps people won't remember - or want to remember - the ratings boost to the Colbert Report or to its Google ranking, but they will want to remember that he did the gig, and the approximate content of it. Hence, in my opinion, it fits the notability criterion. As long as the WHCA holds a dinner and invites comedians to perform, people will want to remember Stephen Colbert's performance. Perhaps that's because (as an inclusionist), I believe that each and every WHCAD performance should have an article (if it has enough information), or maybe it's because Colbert's was one of the most notable in the history of the event. Bastin8 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Great, so Al Franken hosted this dinner ten years ago. That's a factoid deserving of about as many words as I just used. Deciding that this particular comic's routine at some minor event is worthy of a full scale article? That's like writing an article based around Nixon's post-Watergate resignation speech -- something which surely has an order of magnitude more historical significance -- for which I'm sure I could dredge up five hundred contemporary quotes parsing every particular, and which surely is remembered. (No such article exists, needless to say.) Great, so the blogosphere went mental in the forty-eight hours after the act, but the only difference between Colbert's gig and Jay Leno is that the President was present and Leno does it every night. The nom is exactly right; this is pop culture ephemera no one will remember six months from now. I like the "ten year" rule myself. RGTraynor 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Even now, I had to go and read the article to remind myself what this was about. In 6 months I am sure noone will remember at all. This does not deserve its own article. Should either be merged to Stephen Colbert, or a general article about the White House Correspondent's dinner. If it cannot be merged, it should be deleted. Mrjeff 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Mrjeff. Humourous political commentary happens frequently; while this may have been a good sample (and acknowleding the effort the editor/s have put into writing the article), I don't see what makes it so notable beyond that of other similar events as to warrant its own entry in an encyclopedia. Paddles 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't buy this whole "US-centric bias" argument. If it's notable in the U.S., it's notable period, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. This is a demonstrably notable and highly-publicized event, and articles like these are precisely what make Wikipedia great. If you were to hear about this event, where else would you go to get such an in-depth description of it other than Wikipedia? Aplomado talk 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is something that is notable in any other country thus automatically notable? Because if not, then by definition Wikipedia would be US-centric. Batmanand | Talk 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So even if an event is notable in a country of 250 million people, it's all null and void because Brits don't find it notable? C'mon. Aplomado talk 04:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. I said that, unless one considers all events that are notable in any country to be automatically notable enough for Wikipedia (to which I suppose I should perhaps ad the caveat that the country has to be of a sufficient size to make it notable to lots of people - say a country of more than ten million people or something like that), then one is automatically being US-centric. I am not some sort of US-phobe. I am simply saying that it is clear double standards to give the US a lower burden of "notability" proof. Batmanand | Talk 08:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is an important event in the history of US and from that record qualifies as a wikipedia entry.
  • Very strong keep. This is an obviously notable event, arousing well-cited critical reaction and becoming an internet sensation. The article is well-written and is much too long to be merged into Stephen Colbert. (It looks as though it was created as a fork.) And besides... How many times has someone dissed the POTUS like this in his presence?? That's right... Never. Until now. (I can't think of one time anyway.) That takes "Muchos... Huevos Grandes." Grandmasterka 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Naconkantari 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep
  • TIME magazine's TV critic called the event a "political-cultural touchstone issue of 2006."[1]. It’s significant.
  • Nothing that I read under "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" seems an applicable reason to delete. The item on "news reports" says, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that)." This article is not a "first-hand news report" from someone at the scene of a "breaking story".
-- Brian.fsm 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To just refect on your examples, IMHO, Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) is notable due to its participation in a Atlantic Hurricane season, which is itself notable due to its immense and lasting impact on the lives of peoples of an entire continent. All Eurovisions are notable, because they are enormously popular (and we are talking more than a few million downloads - somthing like 100 million people watch the show). Simpsons episodes, such as Bart on the Road, are tough ones. In the future, once the Simpsons has finshed, maybe they should not have their own pages, but for now, their cultural impact is being felt over many years. The drafts are notable, due to their part in every NFL season, which are themselves notable due to their enormous and lasting cultural impact. Elvis sightings is an important part of culture for a significant minority; it is practically a subculture in itself. Freedom fries should, in due course, perhaps be moved to a page that contains lots of stuff about US reactions to the War in Iraq; in a few years, this will be non-notable enough to not deserve its own article.
I just write all that, not so much as a soapbox, but because I think it is important that people see my and the other deleters' thinking. The ten year test is not policy, I agree, but it is surely implied by such ideas as notablity and importance, which are important parts of WP:NOT et al. Batmanand | Talk 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to delete a page not based upon any specific criteria within the deletion policy but what you imply from it? That's pretty irresponsible. --kizzle 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no policy on notability. Please do not accuse me of misuing policy. Batmanand | Talk 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're justifying deleting a page because it violates WP:N, which is "not a policy or guideline" but an "essay", rather than specifically citing where it violates deletion policy, than I am indeed accusing you of misusing policy. --kizzle 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are only three cardinal content policies of deletion -- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Which of these does this article violate?
You claim that "notablity and importance" are important parts of WP:NOT. Please back this up with relevant quotes from the policy so we have something a bit more concrete to discuss. -- Brian.fsm 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. Firstly, in answer to the point made by Kizzle, we delete things all the time as non-notable, even though there is no policy on notability. Unless you advocate not deleting anything for the reason non-notable, I suggest you rethink your accusations. To Brian.fsm, I quote from WP:NOT: "News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news" (my emphasis). Please explain to me how this is an event of historical significance. If not, then by your own terms you should surely vote to delete. Oh, and as for this idea that WP:NOT has no bearing on deletion, that is plainly absurd. WP:NOT specifies what is not meant for Wikipedia; deletion debates are about determing what is not meant for Wikipedia! Batmanand | Talk 21:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Colbert's speech of more "historical signifance" than, say, Donut Run, the 11th episode of season 2 of Veronica Mars? Is it more notable than Thirty-Eight Minutes, the fourth episode of Stargate Atlantis?
The sentence "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance..." is not the same as saying, "Wikipedia should only include articles of historical significance." If you think that "Wikipedia should only include articles of historical significance," propose changing WP:NOT to say exactly that. -- Brian.fsm 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Justifying deletion because "we delete things all the time as non-notable" is a fallacy; just because it happens doesn't mean it's right. If you want to delete a page, it is incumbant on you to provide why this page fits criteria within the deletion policy, not your subjective implications based upon things that aren't policy. I re-assert my stance that you are misusing policy by not providing the specific criteria within the deletion policy that this applies to (and no, it's not a "breaking news story"). Finally, for those people who say that comedic routines like this happen all the time, you're entirely missing the point. How many of those examples given on this page, Jay Leno, David Letterman, and other stand-up comedians, say such commentary with the president sitting 10 feet away? This is why its notable, not because it's just another comedic routine, but that it was right in front of the president. --kizzle 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have misrepresented what I said. You seemed to be saying that, because we do not currently have a policy on notability, I should not be using notability as an argument for the deletion of this page. I said that that is patently ridiculous, because a) it does say in WP:DP that "They [participants in the deletion process] should bear in mind what Wikipedia is not"; and that in WP:NOT, the guidelines on news stories say that only ones on events of historical significance should be kept; and b) that if we never deleted anything on the basis of notability, at least half of all deletions would not happen. I am unsure how familiar you are with AfD, so I will assume you are unfamiliar, because if you look at any random day, the number of "Delete, nn"-type comments is enormous. Unless you believe that they are all invalid - in which case I fear you will find yourself in a very small minority - then you surely have to accept that the principle of notability is central to AfD, even if the policy is not yet fully formed. Then this argument becomes about whether or not this event is notable enough, which is an argument I am more than willing to have. Batmanand | Talk 08:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing whether this page should be kept based upon other pages, whether its all the random pages such as television episodes that get kept or the pages that get deleted because of notability, is a bad argument. You're correct in saying that I'm not familliar with AfD, but I am familliar with WP:DP, and so far you haven't shown this page to fit any criteria within that policy. One cannot gauge historical significance from an event only 3 weeks ago, and just because you seem to think the event is trivial, the sheer amount of keeps on this page seem to imply this event has a little bit more significance than you'd like to believe. --kizzle 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are right that my opinion on this matter appears to not be the consensus opinion. As such, unless something funny happens (or I whip out ten dozen sockpuppets... hmm... now there's an idea :D), this article will porbably stay. I appreciate, though, that we have finally agreed that it is the notability of the subject that is the real cause for debate in this AfD; even in defeat, some agreement has been reached, and for that I am thankful. Batmanand | Talk 09:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets wage a sockpuppet war :) ... by the way re-read my last comment, the real cause for debate in this AfD is not notability but whether the page fits criteria within the deletion policy. My comment about the event's significance was just for shooting the breeze :) --kizzle 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so it's not like we have to worry about saving space here. This is notable enough at present that it is reasonable to expect that someone would come here looking for the information. If in ten years it becomes non-notable, then it can be merged or deleted at that time. -- Zawersh 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Daughter articles don't need to be independently notable because they are in spirit part of the notable parent article, split off only because of its length. If the comedian is notable, information about the comedian is notable irrespective of which page they are in. Loom91 13:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you really mean this? Are the names of Stephen Colbert's children, dog, golf partner or whatever notable just because he is? Batmanand | Talk 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's verifiable, all of that information is potentially interesting and useful. If someone wants a thumbnail sketch of Stephen Colbert, they can look at Stephen Colbert. If they want details like the ones you cite, why not spin off a Personal Life of Stephen Colbert so they can find what they're looking for? It doesn't hurt the parent article to link to a more specific spinoff... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Batmanand -- above, in response to my comment, you argue that every tropical storm in the Atlantic and every episode of the Simpsons is notable because it's related to something notable. Stephen Colbert was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people of the year.[2] Surely, the biggest speech of his career is also notable. -- Brian.fsm 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between hurricanes and a speech. Hurricanes are individual, unique, touch millions of people in many countries. The Atlantic Hurricane season, under any conception of notability, is a keeper. An individual member of it deserves its own article because each event in the whole season also has substantial long-term effects. Each speech that a comedian makes does not have this effect. Again, I beg the question: should everyone that Time magazine rates as the 100 most influential people of the year (who obviously all deserve articles) have every detail that can be acquired about them be added? Of course not. There is some material that is not needed or wanted on Wikipedia. The colour of George W Bush's underwear is one of them. A minor speech by a comedian, that is effectively one of many that happen every day, that will be forgotten in a few weeks, is another. Batmanand | Talk 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) was a tropical storm, not a hurricane. Zeta didn't impact millions of lives -- the only impact I noted from the article was causing heavy seas and "adverse winds" for a rowing competition. Pretty tame stuff. -- Brian.fsm 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the color of Stephen Colbert's underwear (red, white, & blue, BTW). It's not about some insignificant detail, like the subway he takes to work. It's about the biggest speech he's given in his career. TIME's TV critic, James Poniewozik, called it "the political-cultural touchstone issue of 2006."[1] (emphasis added) -- Brian.fsm
  • Keep, because it's historically significant. --68.192.186.32 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this degree of political dissent is notable, even in 10 years. If not kept as a notable political moment, keep as an internet meme, which we have billions of on wikipediaSpencerk 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes in, weak keep... quotes out, keep. Quotes have no place in the article, unless actually analysed individually in some manner. -- Zanimum 15:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a news source, that's what Wikinews is for. --Nick Boalch 19:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The exact quote from [[WP::NOT]] reads, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that)." This article is not a first-hand report from a breaking story. -- Brian.fsm
      • As ever we need to invoke the spirit of the rule rather than the exact, pedantic wording. This is self-evidently not an event of great historical significance. It's news, and should be on Wikinews. --Nick Boalch 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is a non-notable comedian routine and unencyclopedic. Johntex\talk 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. JonMoore 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete — per nom. (well argued BTW), Mrjeff, and cholmes75. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most useful things about the Wikipedia is that it contains random and interesting details that would not be kept in a paper encyclopedia due to space constraints, but are nevertheless historical, notable, or just interesting. I would also suspect that the bias toward covering US-centric topics has something to do with the distribution of internet access in the world at the moment, and will rectify itself without policing as internet access increases worldwide. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flamingjune (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep It's significant, notable, and encyclopedic. The references have already been made. If you want to apply "will anyone care in 50 years" tests, apply them to professional and college sports, then come back to this. Removing an actual event that affects politics and news, and puts people like Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame in the same room with the current president that is presently trying to reconstruct the CIA and the power of the president is more than just a news headline, much less one that for sports "writers" to jabber about for a week or 2 because someone might win a championship of uselessness. You really need a priority system in here to put things in perspective.In1984 00:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe there's serious disagreement on this. As much as I hate the "As long we have article X, we have to have article Y" argument, we have articles on individual episodes of television shows. Everyone accepts this. This is very nearly the same thing, and, as folks have pointed out above, it's gotten serious media attention. This is as verifiable as it gets. Yeah, it's really just news, but so are a lot of things. This is a clear keeper. Friday (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting point about the TV shows. I'd probably be in favor of keeping the article if it were 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. ScottW 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, in that case, if I were you, I'd support keeping this article. Then you can try to change the subject of it slightly, or make a new article and merge this into there. This happens all the time- if you think one subject is too small a detail for an independant article, merge it into the article on the broader topic. Friday (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I thought it would make a difference I'd probably support merging. But as it is, I think it's apparent that consensus is that the article should be kept in its current state. So, I'll let the active editors of the article work out what happens from here. ScottW 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would be difficult to merge this with the articles on the dinner or Colbert. Keep articles small (under 50kb) --Ted 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep, but do not delete. --Ted 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading your point on Wikipedia's focus on US-centric articles, I am getting the funny idea that you are calling for affirmative action. A balance between U.S. and non-U.S. articles would be healthy, but it doesn't seem necessary. Hard drive storage capacity in the long run will grow and become less expensive, so I don't feel that we should put every single article to a ten-year litmus test, not yet. --Ted 08:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I am calling for a form of affiramtive action, in that I think we should delete this (and other) articles that I believe do not conform to Wikipedia's historical notability criteria. I am not calling for the standards for US articles to be artificially made higher, or for other countries to get artificially lower standards; the two are the same thing in the end. I am just seeking a consistency across the encyclopaedia. Alas, it appears I am in a (sizeable but nonetheless) minority. Batmanand | Talk 09:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is this anonymous user's first and so far only contribution to Wikipedia. Batmanand | Talk 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked on this article a bit and suggested a Move/Merge to "2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner" previously. My take on it is that this article isn't really about a comic performance (which would perhaps be a bit trivial for Wikipedia) but about a political and media event, which happened to involve a comedian. Since currently there's no article on the dinner itself, and this article seemingly wouldn't have to be edited very heavily to suit that purpose, expanding the topic seems like the least controversial way to handle the issue. --Lee Bailey 05:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good, interesting, well-researched article. I can't see any obvious places where it breaches any of the rules in the AfD criteria. As for notability, I'm an inclusionist. David L Rattigan 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a well-researched, in-depth article depicting a notable event, for not only the performance itself, but the reaction illustrating the U.S. political climate and the accusations of self-censorship against the U.S. print media, as well as the internet phenomenon it became. It is also well used in the irony article to illustrate Roman irony in a modern context. A merge into the 'Stephen Colbert' article would simply force the article to split due to size.
Furthermore, I argue against the apparent belief that something is 'US-centric' simply because it documents an event within the U.S., and believe that simply attempting to deny notable events in the U.S. because other countries do not feature comparable coverage, and to test notability by the number of people who know about it, is fallacious. One must remember that conditions besides just population affect internet coverage of a country, such as the sizes and types of groups with internet access. If more coverage of events in countries besides the U.S. is wanted, then more people with knowledge of such events should contribute. I am well aware of the technical constraints of inclusionist policy, but these must be balanced against the informational constraints of deletionism. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US-centricism works two ways. Of course, the US has more coverage than most countries simply because (in percentage terms and in also in raw numbers) the US has more people with internet access, and as such more Wikipedians (it helps that the Government doesn't block or censor the site either...). But if the criteria that we compare things against for notability are lower - either explicitly or implicity - for the US than for other countries, then we are compounding the problem. IMO we fail this second part of the test; although it appears that I do not share the consensus view. Batmanand | Talk 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as its pretty clear what the concensus is, can we close it to get the deletion message off of the article page? --kizzle 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b "Stephen Colbert and the Death of "The Room"". Retrieved 2006-05-08.
  2. ^ "The TIME 100". TIME. Retrieved 2006-05-18.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner&oldid=1141948742"