Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart


 * 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. Merge discussions belong on the article talk pages, not at AfD - there is no consensus for any action here Fritzpoll (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Keep, as the documentation here is not collected elsewhere and serves as its own high-profile topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrzuko (talk • contribs) 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Put your comment at the bottom next time. Macarion (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable by itself. Merge with Jim Cramer. Macarion (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AND WHATEVER IT'S CALLED WHEN YOU REMOVE THE TEXT IN AN ARTICLE AND PUT IT INTO ANOTHER ARTICLE, DO THAT. AS IN DESTROYING ONE ARTICLE AND PUTTING IT TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER. KIND OF LIKE 'DELETING AND MERGING Macarion (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:NOT. Also, recentism. Macarion (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not merge with Jon Stewart, aside from the fact Stewart is the interviewer and Cramer is the interviewee? JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would make more sense to merge with The Daily Show than with Jon Stewart. It has more to do with the show than the personal life or career of Stewart. But I think it has even more to do with Jim Cramer. I think it will have more of an effect on him than anyone else. Maybe it shoudl be included in all three articles. But it doesn't deserve its own. Macarion (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Jim Cramer, and link section to Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest withdrawal of nomination. AfD is not for merge or redirect proposals. These go on articles' talk pages. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the procedures, but I think in retrospect that this suggestion above and the one just below it make a great deal of sense. The merger can and should be discussed on the talk page of the article itself. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Procedural Close Nomination does not propose deletion. Townlake (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - people are searching for info, here's as good a place as any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.225.253 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps the article should be retitled to reflect the entire escapade rather than just 'the appearance'? It seems like this 'feud' was an event of notable media coverage if nothing else, and the consequences of it may develop further. I support covering the series of events in its own article instead of an overwhelming chunk in the articles on Jim Cramer, Jon Stewart, or The Daily Show. Rodomontade (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, whether or not Cramer ends up being fired, we should look into the notion that these have opened up or been a part of a broader discussion about the role of business journalism and its complicity in the current financial debacle Rodomontade (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is quite notable and has significant coverage by independent sources. I would also suggest a procedural close, as this is Articles for Deletion, not to merge.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI, as far as AfD is concerned, "merge" and "keep" are essentially identical, because merged articles must be kept (but are usually shortened into redirects) so that their contents' history can be preserved. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Lawyer2b (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - to me, this article is the essence of what Wikipedia is all about. -- David  Shankbone  00:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  very incredibly weak keep- On one hand, Not news would seem to apply... on the other hand... This was a fairly notable event, even if it was a less than half hour interview. I'd say keep for now, and lets look back at it in a month or two to see if its really as notable as we seem to think it is. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to a straight keep, as the comparisons to Colbert's speech, and Who Made Huckabee seem apt. But i'll echo what i said about coming back in a month or so to re-examine notability. Not because I don't think it will still seem notable, but because I think a firm consensus decided after the fuss has died down might be better. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. The recentism is choking Wikipedia more and more... Wizardman  00:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Cramer article. article, not yet created, to be entitled Criticism of CNBC. I admit it's a close question. If this results in his getting canned, or if there are further repercussions, it can be re-created.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To explain what I said above: I just learned that there is an article on Stephen Colbert's White House correspondents association dinner, which was not as significant as this situation. But I am still uneasy about there being a separate article on this controversy. Here is a suggestion: Given that Stewart says he wasn't being personal and was aiming his jibe at CNBC as a whole, why not create a Criticism of CNBC article and fold this article into that one? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (not merge, keep, or redirect) per WP:NOT. This "conflict" will have absolutely no historical importance. -Atmoz (talk)
 * I just wanted to clarify that if this is to be merged, my view is that it would have to be shrunk considerably down in length so as to not dominate the Cramer article. So I agree to that extent with Atmoz. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you be so sure Atmoz? It's only been going on a few days. This seems like a crystal ball prediction. Rodomontade (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete (preferably) or (very much second choice) Merge, mainly per WP:NOTNEWS. Individual appearances on talk shows are not notable. If they were, we'd have an article on Tom Cruise's appearance on Oprah (among many others). These are the kind of brief, transient events that Wikinews was designed to cover, and Wikipedia isn't. Robofish (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews - This article has a lot of material, merging would mean that a lot of content is lost. I think it is important to keep those information. Fangfufu (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Keep is beginning to look like the right answer here. I'm satisfied now that the topic has receieved a large amount of mainsteam press coverage, and is notable after all. If necessary, it can always be merged at a later date, but it's worth keeping for now. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or perhaps merge the more pertinent stuff somewhere; we're not a news service or a tabloid. But the "conflict" is already detailed ad nauseam in Cramer's article. - Biruitorul Talk 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nominator here. Sorry, I thought that it was assumed that if an article is merged with another, it would be deleted. I propose that Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart should redirect to Jim Cramer, and Cramer's appearance on the Daily Show should be summarized in Jim Cramer's article. Macarion (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. One need only look at the References section to see that the content has enough media references to qualify as notable. More references can be found at .  Also, consider the case of Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.  That's a former front page featured article.  Those of you that are proposing this article be deleted...  do you also think that that article ought to be deleted?  If not, how do you reconcile keeping that article with deleting this one?
 * As for the suggestion that wikipedia ought not disproportionally cover recent events to the dereliction of historical events... you know what the solution to that is, don't you?  It's not to delete the articles that make wikipedia imbalanced - it's to create enough new articles to act as a counter balance.
 * If nothing else, make this article not just about Jim Cramer's appearance but about the episode, as a whole (even though Jim Cramer's appearance pretty much was the episode). That way, the notability standards for TV episodes will apply. Abyssinia, Henry is considered notable, for example, per the notability standards for TV episodes, even though on the importance scale, it's not all that high at all.  Remember that notability and importance are not the same thing. TerraFrost 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POKEMON. Macarion (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:VAGUEWAVE. What about my proposal that notability standards for TV shows be used? What about my actually addressing my Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner question? What about all the reliable sources that can be found on the subject?  WP:POKEMON does not give you cart blanch permission to violate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TerraFrost 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that event was rather more notable than this one, as it involved an actual President of the United States being criticised to his face. This was just about the host of one popular TV show interviewing another. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the notability. As for Abyssinia, Henry - yes, it's clearly a sufficiently notable episode to have its own page, but that doesn't mean every television episode is notable. Robofish (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic at hand isn't every episode - it's this episode. To suggest otherwise is (1) a slippery slope and (2) a red herring. This episode has received a lot of coverage - much more so than the average Daily Show episode. That you think the episode was of little consequence is irrelevant - it's the media's opinion of it that matters.  And you're right - maybe it shouldn't be receiving much attention, but, regardless of whether or not it should be receiving attention, it is receiving attention. TerraFrost 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The White House dinner article wasn't known to me, and I can see how that can be used as precedent. See my compromise suggestion in my comment above. If it is merged into a new Criticism of CNBC article, most of this article can be retained and put in context with the widespread criticism of CNBC you see now.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to WikiNews but keep at least a summary of the exchange on Stewart's, Cramer's, and/or the Daily Show's page. I'm not up to date with current guidelines, but if they permit it, I would suggest having a link to the main WikiNews article at the head of each summary. Paradox  society  (review) 06:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly and obviously not notable but driven the passions of the moment.Danburymint (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor has made few other edits. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep from me as whether it is strictly notable or not, it is information that is clearly pertinent and important enough about Stewart, Cramer, and The Daily Show that the information will be on all of their articles anyway, much like the information about Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire. I'd rather have the information in one coherent article (which this appears to be) than in three or more places in different forms, as the Crossfire mention seems to be. Dgtljunglist (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep More and more, I'm finding rampant deletionism makes Wikipedia less useful and in a way that's frustratingly inconsistent. The points User:Macarion brings up about the relative merits of various pages are right on the mark.  This should never have been marked for deletion in the first place--merging, at the very least, would have been appropriate from the very beginning.  JoeAnderson (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much of this useful information would be lost in a merge.  This is an interview that has been reported on extensively in the major media both in print and broadcast.  In other words, this is huge news.  I agree with the above comments that rampant deletionism is hurting wikipedia.  This article is not frivolous or trivial -- it is about an important recent event touching on the recession & the media. Silk Knot (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As interesting as the show is at times, this is getting out of ahnd, and it's entirely trivial. Dahn (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per JoeAnderson, Silk Knot and Dgtljunglist's points. And not to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Who Made Huckabee would be another example similar to the Correspondent's Dinner. This is a significant event in the realm of the shows (and in the mainstream media). Would an article be more accepted if/when an award is won for this episode? DP 76764  (Talk) 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This event has been covered by many new sources and even the White House Press Secretary has mentioned it. MMAJunkie250 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This event can be summarized/mentioned in other articles; as it stands now the amount of detail in this article is fairly absurd (although, I am of the opinion that if a reader wants a complete expose, that's what references/citations are for). If not delete, then trim it way down and/or merge the most pertinent facts into Daily Show/CNBC. In full disclosure, I participated in the Santelli discussion and a few days ago (before the article in question was created) added the Criticism section to CNBC - a reply is what made me aware of this in the first place.Curious brain (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Curious Brain. My feeling is that summarizing it in other articles would unnecessarily clutter them. Right now there are over 1,500 articles in Google's News database about the controversy (including depictions, op eds, overviews, etc). In that sense maybe it is more appropriate for the WikiNews Project? However, my understanding of that project is that it is more geared towards single events (Cramer goes on Daily Show) and not broader descriptions of a series of events (Jon Stewart's 2009 Controversy with CNBC). What's your feeling on this? Rodomontade (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, my impression is that this has had strong implications for CNBC—I think it's worth mentioning that the President's Press Secretary was asked to comment on it. As for the importance to The Daily Show, it seems at least rather important: it was their second highest viewed episode ever, only behind the inauguration episode, and the following day saw thedailyshow.com's highest traffic to date. Rodomontade (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a wikilawyer, so I can't cite precedents and policy/guidelines as well as more experienced folks; I can just give my opinion - but I am just a minimalist, I suppose. From the point of view that this event had different implications for different entities, I am of the opinion that CNBC was affected in a different way then Cramer, so that they are somewhat separate - which is why I sort of prattled about the 'mentioned in other articles' thing. On the other hand, I strongly see the point about consolidation to avoid repetitive statements and provide a centralized location for any relevant information (as Art Smart points out below me - edit conflict :). But, forced to favor delete or keep, I come down on delete in this instance.Curious brain (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep When I first got wind of this article, I thought it was a bad idea and favored deletion. However, this event seems to have taken on a seminal quality, being covered repeatedly on ABC and CBS, and even by PBS.  (No coverage on NBC, which seems to be a disappointing business decision, rather than a journalistic one.)  Also favor keeping because this article covers overlapping areas:  CNBC, Jim Cramer, and Jon Stewart.  Rather than have this content duplicated in all three articles, transcluding them here seems most efficient.  Thanks.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keith Olbermann has no problem sabotaging his own network to make a political point against CNBC, though Jim Cramer did vote for Obama. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, It may transpire that this interview will have far reaching consequences, it may not. Blythy (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Blythy said, it may have long-term consequences. If not, it is at least notable. Keep for now, reassess in a few months. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is becoming increasingly apparent that this topic is highly notable. Also, the contention that this article fails WP:NOTNEWS is debatable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jim Cramer/Mad Money/CNBC and Jon Stewart/The Daily Show. This is clearly a news article. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Comments: I think certain Jon Stewardt interviews are encyclopedia worthy. The interview on crossfire also comes to mind. Tkjazzer (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article has strong implications and will have big effects on CNBC in the future. It has had notable media coverage and is long enough to deserve its own article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.68.124.182 (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as mentioned before - the case of Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner springs to mind as an equivalent kind of article. Furthermore, just because it is a recent event doesn't mean it only belongs in WikiNews. It really irritates me to see people shouting "recentism" as if Wikipedia's ability to be highly relevant to the moment was a bad thing! Sure, we have to keep up notability standards but this interview is being talked about all over the place and I'm not even in America. Witty Lama 01:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep many google news sources/high ratings/major interest in this. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is rare that a single episode of such a show will become independently notable. This is one of those times. Meets the test of historical significance, as shown by the amount of good sources that have already appeared. . DGG (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and Who Made Huckabee? seem to follow a similar theme. TheUncleBob (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Others have noted the similarities with Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, but it is worth noting that that speech was notable both for being in the presence of an actual President, but also for symbolizing the general disaffection that a lot of the population had at the time, and that it was this latter reason that that article is worth keeping as a cultural moment. However, the Colbert speech only really gained in notoriety as it gained popularity on the internet in the weeks that followed. In the middle of a financial crisis, it is entirely possible that this article will have the same symbolic value, but we have only had three days since the interview, and I think it is worth holding off deletion to see if it gains the same cultural significance. Msmackle (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor has made no other edits prior to this. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. My point is that no one is going to come to Wikipedia for this information. They're going to search YouTube or something. Nothing happened in the interview or "controversy" as they're calling now that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Not as its own article I mean. It's been covered by CNN, big deal. So has the Chris Brown/Rihanna scandal, and that doesn't have its own article. At least I hope it doesn't. Also, removing all text on an article and making it redirect to a different page seems like the definition of deleting to me. Macarion (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My !vote is Keep and maybe merge, too if this article is, in fact, genuinely nominated for deletion in the first place. Because I don't know if it is, I have asked the nominator for some pertinent information. For future reference, in case it comes in handy, here is what I asked: "Hi, just hoping to clarify something here. In your revised nomination, are you suggesting that this article be deleted or merged, or that it be deleted and merged? If it is the latter, please note that this is not possible. Merged articles must be kept (see WP:MERGE), because this is the only way to preserve the history of the merged material. When articles' contents are merged, their histories remain separate, so both pages have to stay intact. One article will usually be shortened into a redirect, which involves the removal of material from the page, but not the deletion, in the AfD sense, of the page. So, if it really is a merge that you're hoping for, I would recommend withdrawing the nomination and raising the issue on article or WikiProject talk pages." Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable incident and scandal, now that it has been moved. ViperSnake151 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. 68.32.149.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep, lots and lots of noise about this in the news, though it is just an entertainment show, it seems to have had ripples beyond that. LiamUK (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To answer your last statmenet, you proposed at the top it would be deleted and merged (which you bolded), merging and redirecting are two different things. Epson291 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that. Macarion (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per above. No indication how this isn't notable. - Epson291 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Mr. Stewert has start more than a media buzz in my opnion and at the very least you can't deny that he has started a dialogue that has started people questioning the going ons of CNBC. People have goten noble prizes for starting dialogues so don't underestimate it. (67.55.223.34 (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep I added a segemnet on Rick Santellli's page seconds after, I watched the Daily Show Episode. Yet, someone deleted it citing the notablity clause. the give and take was noticeable enough. I don't know about 3 yrs from now when websites archives runs out of those reruns but still it's a topic of debate MAJOR topic of debate today. I would like to know about it and how it unfolds. This article is well researched and deleting will deprive many of a chance to know what happened and who dropped the ball on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malmaa (talk • contribs) 09:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it won't, because the information will still be available on other articles. Macarion (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor has made few other edits. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As per above. ISD (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great contribution. Macarion (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge content into The Daily Show,CNBC,Mad Money,Jim Cramer,Jon Stewart. The interview was a one-time event, and it can be adequately covered in the aforementioned articles. ♣ ♦ SmartGuy ♥ ♠  (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, thank you Macarion (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi SmartGuy. Just a brief question; it was my thinking that the article isn't about the interview itself but about the media circus and public attention surrounding it (second highest watched episode of The Daily Show in history some sources say). Similarly, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (previously a featured article) was a one time event. However, it became a source of viral public attention and eventually was acknowledged in the media. Additionally, it seems this has had at least some impact on CNBC. I've seen reports that their ratings suffered (though I'd like to see more sources on that), and NBC has refused to comment about it and may have even buried the story (like to see more sources if that's true as well). What's your thoughts on this? Thanks. Rodomontade (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the matter are that these events occurred less than two weeks ago. Time will judge whether or not the incident in question is of historical significance.  As of today it is a bit part of a much larger story (that story being the global financial crisis) and we should treat it as such by putting the information in appropriate articles.  It is by no means a "defining moment" or "defining issue" regarding that larger story, as the Army-McCarthy hearings were to McCarthyism, or Black Tuesday was to the Great Depression. ♣ ♦ SmartGuy  ♥ ♠  (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah alright. I think I get it now. If I understand you correctly your feeling is that this is part of a larger story and doesn't need its own article. A question just for my clarification, if time may judge that it is of historical significance, then why delete it immediately? I guess I think claiming either (that we can be sure it will/won't be important years from now) is a crystal ball prediction. Second, just for me cause I'm unfamiliar; if it is deleted, what is the process for reactivating articles of this type? In terms of judging notability in the present it already bears, I've seen this floated around, but in my opinion it's difficult to confirm as of yet: | Ratings Down for CNBC, Cramer. Also there has been some reporting that CNBC now needs to recover some in the eyes of the public (unfortunately there's a lot more sources on the latter than the former). Thanks for discussing SmartGuy. Cheers.☯ Rodomontade (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ☯
 * I suggest you save the current content in a sandbox somewhere. That way if it gets deleted you can try resurrecting it at a later date, with more/added/improved information.  The incident is certainly notable, but I think that the issue here is whether it is a major event by itself, or if it is something emblematic of a larger situation.  I'm inclined to the latter line of thinking. ♣ ♦ SmartGuy  ♥ ♠  (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for well-sourced, newsworthy information on random topics. You wouldn't find an article like this in Encyclopædia Britannica, therefore, at the very least, this 'article' must be merged into, for example, news broadcasting. That is the correct way to organize a digital encyclopedia. --131.111.213.39 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, certainly notable I think it should be kept -C6541 (T↔C) at 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Can something that was essentially a week-long controversy manifesting itself in 5-minute segments really be called notable?  I equate it to something along the lines of the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell argument, something that is certainly not worthy of its own article.  At the most, this should be condensed and added to a new article about CNBC criticism, notable Daily Show occurrences, or something similar. --166.82.229.37 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it was recent doesn't means it shouldn't be preserved. This mightend up being a fairly major event in Cramer or CNBC's history.24.222.187.216 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would like to think that the changes to this article since it was nominated for deletion have brought it to a state where it better demonstrates that it deserves to exist - rst20xx (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename - 1. this article is well researched, well sourced, and well written. 2. there are existing precedents for articles to be created based on little more than a few minutes of TV - the Stephen Colbert one that has been mentioned several times is a good example.  3. This article cannot simply be merged into other, existing articles about related parties.  For one, it is far too long.  And second, and more importantly, it would be disingenuous to mention it in other articles without properly explaining the background to the event - details that would, once again, be too long to put in other articles.  Therefore, it needs it own article.  4. other things have gained as much media attention as this but don't have their own articles because no one could be bothered to make one comprehensive enough.  The fact that this one is comprehensive, both in its coverage of the event and, crucially, of the background and aftermath, make it a model for how poorly explained side-notes in existing articles can be expanded and thoroughly explained in their own articles.  However, the current name (Jon Stewart controversy...) should be changed.   DJR  ( T ) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge into Jon Stewart. This is a current event that will be forgotten in 3 months.  No need for it to have its own article.  Juppiter (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there Juppiter. I'm wondering if this doesn't seem like a crystal ball prediction. It seems to me the notability of this article lies in the large media attention as a reflection of common discourses in American politics and public conscious.  To make sure I understand you fully, can you describe why you feel it is non-notable? Maybe you've seen some similar example that evidence this? I appreciate any clarification. Cheers! Rodomontade (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody above said it better than I could... it's like the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud.  Not a profound change in American politics or something that changed the outcome of an election...  this is the news of the day on a slow news day.  Giving it its own article is present day bias.  Does the Nixon/Kennedy debate have its own article?  That was far more influential on American politics than this. Juppiter (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Juppiter. I feel like I have a much better understanding of your position now. With that in mind, let me ask a further question: If it does not represent a change in American politics or public consciousness (as in being responsible for one), does it reflect a change in American politics or public discourse (as in, one that had already occurred prior to or developed in tandem with these events)? In the latter sense I mean bearing some similarity tothe Frost/Nixon interviews as a cultural event. (Obviously no movies have been made about these events, and I would have to disagree with anyone who said such a project was likely in the future, but I hope you still see my quandary). Thanks for clarifying—Clarity is good for a restful mind. Cheers. Rodomontade (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Not a profound change in American politics or something that changed the outcome of an election. Check out WP:N. Although changing the outcome of an election or whatever may be a sufficient condition for notability it is not a necessary one. If you feel that it should be necessary, the place to discuss that would be Wikipedia talk:Notability. TerraFrost (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This topic has surpassed the threshold of a single, self-contained news event by a large margin.  The breadth and diversity of coverage and commentary indicate a degree of significance that, at the least, qualifies for its own Wikipedia article.  That does not necessarily mean that it will be well-remembered down the road, or that it marks a major turning point in this, that, or the other (although many commentators have suggested that's the case).  But it does mean that it is unambiguously notable, that, the article is not mere crystal ballery, and given its breadth and continual development, it also means that it can't just be shoveled off to Wikinews or delete/merged on the basis of "NOT NEWS" (and a careful reading of that rule shows that this kind of thing is clearly not the kind of thing that is excluded by it).--ragesoss (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This interview was a watershed event and is definitely notable.70.253.69.240 (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Watershed"? How do you know? It usually takes more than a week for that to become apparent. Will we still be calling it a "watershed" in five years' time? I'd wager not. - Biruitorul Talk 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Biruitorul. Calling it a watershed event would be at best extremely premature—it takes time to ascertain and demonstrate such assessments. At the same time 'wagering' concerning its future importance suffers from the same as both sound like crystal ball predictions. I'd point to Colbert's Association Dinner Speech for an example of an event that was certainly notable at the time, but by no means is a common household or media topic even a couple of years later. Note that the Colbert article is a previously featured one, so whether or not it is considered a 'watershed' in a week/month/year seems to be off subject, no? ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable and well sourced. Merging would not be appropriate since the article addresses more than just Jim Cramer. Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - One event with the only purpose of denegrating a living person - BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The original title of the article is slightly misleading; it is not 'one event' in actuality, but a series of events. DP 76764  (Talk) 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Second that- I think if you read the retitled article you may agree that it isn't defamatory towards any particular individual (though some more balanced criticism of Stewart and his point is needed). The emphasis has been somewhat removed from Cramer and instead placed on media coverage of the event, Stewart's broader criticisms, reactions by the press, etc. ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Denigrating an individual refers to a negative bias in tone, like if the Jim Cramer article were written to trash him. This article is about criticism by Jon Stewart, not original Wikipedia-editors' criticism.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (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.