Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colbert it


 * 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 delete and redirect to The Colbert Report. -- jonny - m t  14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Colbert it

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non-notable idiom. The article is heavily biased (plenty of weasel-words), lacks in-line citations, and is irrelevant overall -- notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a repository of neologisms or quotes from TV shows -- and this is one step worse, it's something said by fans ABOUT a personality on a TV show; it's not even from the show itself. Poorly-written stub articles about things like this classify as fancruft. There is no point is merging this into the Colbert Report article, as all the same flaws would still exist there, and it wouldn't be contributing to that article (especially since the goal is, as with all articles, for it to be professional). Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect Shouldn't warrant an article, but I think a redirect to The Colbert Report is okay. PeterSymonds | talk  20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, non-notable idiom.  TJ   Spyke   20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable indiom, but just improve citations and wording. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on idioms.  Also, keep per the WP:ITSCRUFT style non-argument.  Happy Easter!  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN WP:NEO. I hear the population of Colbert-related idioms has tripled since the debut of his show. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. needs more sources.  Dwilso  04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redrect no value in this article. Nothing to merge into Colbert Report either.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to The Colbert Report Think outside the box 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above DJLayton4 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. This is precisely what Urban Dictionary was created for. (In response to Le Grand Roi's vote above, I submit that there's a huge difference between idiom and slang, and between popular slang and unpopular slang.) --zenohockey (talk) 22:58, 29 March 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.