Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Colbert Report episodes


 * 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

List of The Colbert Report episodes
While The Colbert Report is a popular show in the cable universe (take note) it (or just about any other regular talk show) does not warrant its own episode guide. There have been 150 episodes done in the last year, and this page is now 99K. We don't have episode guides for nearly all game shows (like Wheel of Fortune), the tonight show, letterman, the today show, maury, nightline and so forth, so why should a somewhat popular cable talk show get a guide? It also violates various parts of WP:NOT, including Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a free webhosting service, if you want to make your own episode guide, make your own site, not sludge this info into WP. Giant onehead 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

100 Listed in "Lists of sitcom telivision episodes"
 * Strong Keep Similar Articles are everywhere including

29 in Lists of "Dramedy telivision episodes"

59 in Lists of "science fiction episodes"

22 in Lists of comedy television series episodes

Saying Similar articles don't exist is a lie. Saying this article is not useful is also a lie. This page is similar to many of these, most notably the "list of the simpsons" episodes. From which each episode has its own page, which in my opinion is less navigateable. This leaves us judging the article on "it takes up too much space". I'm not on WIKI an exceptional amount, but I didn't see any policy on "lists with many items not allowed" and if there is one, it should be respected. The simpsons list for instance; however, is twice the size of this one. Where is the threshold for too many items? Is it at exactly 154 episodes that a show has been on the air too often to have a wikipedia article? It's also my opinion that the submitter for deletion didn't do so in good faith and seems offended by the show itself being an "indiscriminate collection of facts" not the article. (69.76.206.124 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Strong Delete per nom for every single reason he's given. --Aaron 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete by African elephant stomping (what with all the new ones that have popped up in Africa over the past 6 months, I'm sure they can spare a few). Variety shows shouldn't have episode lists on Wikipedia. Irongargoyle 03:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Split per People Powered. The Wikipedia is not paper arguments are winning me over and this debate is getting needlessly divisive. Irongargoyle 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, do the people making these kinds of episode guides know that there are other sites made specifically for this sort of thing? Recury 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's not a reason for deleting the article; for pretty much every single notable TV show ever, there's a web site which contains episode synopses. Should we delete every episode of every show ever? "Who Shot J.R.?" Who cares? It's on another web site! There are other sites specifically made to talk about Grand Theft Auto, so maybe we should delete all of that series's articles, too. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Colbert has enough WP coverage as it is. - Richfife 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So does Dubya. What's your point? -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT, I AM HEREBY REVOTING MY VOTE TO KEEP ALL COLBERTS AND DELETE ALL DUBYAS! Recury 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. Also seems to violate WP:OR. -- Satori Son 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no violation of OR for episode guides. The show itself is the primary source. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an overgeneralization of this issue. Some elements of this article are original research, not the entire concept of episode guides in general. -- Satori Son 00:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * List them, you can't merely use weasel words to wish it into existance (69.76.206.124 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Normally I don't feed the socks, but I will give you one specific example simply to illustrate my point: In the comments for Episode 131, it states "This is the first episode that has neither a Wørd nor an introductory phrase." Has this fact every been previously published by credible, third-party sources? Obviously not. The only way for a Wikipedia editor to verify this fact is to sit down and watch all 131 episodes up to that point, which is not only completely impractical, but the very definition of "original research". That being said, however, if this article is kept, as now seems likely, I have the faith that editors with an interest in the subject will get the article up to standards. Thanks, Satori Son 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it the definition of original research? I'm pretty sure that's not the spirit of the policy.  The spirit is to have verifiable information.(although clearly one need merely scroll through the table to see that both boxes are empty there for the first time).  As you said also anyone can sit down and watch the previous 130 episodes of the show (the show being a source).  Won't every person that does sit down and watch it come to the same conclusion?  You probably can't verify the colors of all the butterfly families without reading a portion of a probably large book.  It is merely organized for use? P.S. not a sock just don't like registering for things when it's optional and wasn't aware it was unreasonable to post that way (69.76.206.124 06:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete per above. MER-C 08:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Crush by elephant - per nom and WP:NOT.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any "original thought" or "soapboxing" in the article, and Wikipedia is full of directory-type information, including lists of episodes of many TV series, even separate articles about individual episodes. If there's any "WP:NOT" relevant here, it's WP:NOT paper, so it's irrelevant that it's 99K. Margana 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I'm a very staunch advocate for episode synopses, and The Colbert Report is an incredibly popular show (both in its niche and in general). So there are a lot of episodes, and so the page is huge. What's your point? Why are these deletion rationale? In my opinion, there is no piece of WP:NOT which applies to this page. I'll certainly disclose that I've contributed a good amount to this page, but I've only done so because I feel that it is a valuable article which should be improved as much as possible. The Colbert Report is certainly a notable television show, and the vast majority of notable TV shows have episode guides (if not articles on every individual episode), and I don't see why this show should be any different. -- Kicking222 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is nothing very different about this compared to other fine wikipedia articles such as List of The Dukes of Hazzard episodes, List of Pokémon episodes or even List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Episode lists are one of the things that wikipedia does well and Colbert has the notoriety to deserve the full wikipedia treatment. The nom has miscited wp:not, none of which applies to this type of article. --JJay 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a really hard time understanding some of this reasoning. There is a big difference between an episode guide for this and a network show like The Dukes of Hazzard.  Dukes of Hazzard had like 25 episodes or so a season, and has much more established notability and ran on a network, meaning that more watched the show and recall it years later.  This show has been on a year, is on cable, gets above average ratings, and with it's format, airs around 150-200 episodes a year, if it stays on the air. And that's just your opinion if the show is extremely popular, it averages around 1.5 million viewers, good for cable, but would be cancelled in days if on a network with those ratings.  Just because you like the show or a few critics praise it doesn't assure that the show is massively popular. I'll stop, but there is just no reason for this page to be on here. Giant onehead 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Firstly, I can't say if I like the show because it's not broadcast in the country where I live. Even if I did like it, that would be irrelevant. Just like your apparent dislike of the show does not matter either. There is no limitation at wikipedia to network shows. That sort of network/cable distinction is increasingly meaningless today. Secondly, the number of episodes broadcast is not a determining factor. We can not unfairly stigmatize the show for broadcasting a lot of episodes. However, given how often Colbert is in the news for one reason or another - certainly far more often than Barney or the stars of Dukes of Hazzard - I think we should be detailing his show's episodes. --JJay 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I never said anything about hating the show, nominating this article had to do with that it just isn't suitable for Wikipedia, not that I think the show is overrated or such. There is a big difference in doing an episode guide for a primetime network drama than a daily talk show. Giant onehead 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, I wouldn't mind a list of episodes if it only had 13 episodes (or some other manageable number) in a season. The Colbert Report has so many episodes each year that this would be an immensely long list after only a couple of years. I'd say this violates WP:NOT a free webhost or an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core des at (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Mr. Billion 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if only because I don't think individual episodes should get an article, yet it wouldn't be a good idea to not have the information. Using examples like game-shows is not using an equivalent media subject, as it doesn't make much sense to cover something that varies only by what puzzle is on and who is solving.  Oh, and what they spend.  And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind a collection of who has been on the Tonight Show or the like.  Sheer potential size isn't much of an issue, IMHO, since we've got things like the List of Playstation games (6000+ entries).  Yeah, at some point, you might want to break things up by season, but that's a convenience issue. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Comparable to lists of television stations: i.e. List of myNetworkTV affiliates (which went through an AfD, one user pointed out that WP:NOT states that Wikipedia has reference tables, the work of 100 editors that was sourced by a notable broadcasting magazine in the months to its launch last month, and more detailed than the category with the same information), List of television stations in Arizona, and lists of television episodes (List of Futurama episodes and this, and when it gets too large, split it like what is being done to List of Pokémon episodes, splitting it by season or year (the latter would be the main criterion for a talk or news program which does not have defined seasons)). Plus, Colbert is more in the news than Futurama or Pokémon. One news exploit came right here to Wikipedia, even. (This is my longest AfD rationale in history!) A note from Colbert fan Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) at 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) for this AfD nomination
 * Comment I don't see how any of those lists you mentioned can be comparable to this one. Futurama is/was a weekly network series and had around 80 episodes.  Even a low-rated episode of Futurama had its ratings several times more higher than the average episode of this show.  I've said this before, if you want to keep using this guide and put it somewhere, why not make your own webpage for it?  WP is not a webhost or a soapbox.  I knew there were going to be a few hardcore fans of this show trying to clutter the vote just to get their show more attention, but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad.  For the admins, please consider that when you make a decision to keep/delete the article.  Giant onehead 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No, I'm not trying to be pro-Colbert, but The Colbert Report has the notability that Futurama, Pokémon, and such shows have. If it's notable, and it has enough episodes to deserve a guide, I think it should have such. Wikipedia is not paper, but has reference tables. Have you read WP:NOT lately? Please. I'm trying to be NPOV and you're making my argument POV. Please stop. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I refuse to stop. That is the most asinine argument I have ever heard.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  You're comparing a daily talk show to a cartoon series.  An episode of a network cartoon series like Futurama is far more notable than 99% of episodes of this show.  I have read WP:NOT and I am 110% certain that this article violates a fair amount of those provisions.  I won't stop, . Giant onehead 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF. Those are requirements for participation here. --JJay 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, sub divide them into seasons eventually. Wikipedia should not have bias against or for itself.  P eople Powered 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom —  We really don't need this on WP --D e on555talkReview 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; I generally oppose listcruft, but this is not listcruft, and episode guides of notable television series with large audiences have wide support on Wikipedia, especially if (as here) they are treated encyclopedically. I don't think these should be a bias against The Colbert Report merely since it has c. 150 episodes a year instead of 13 or 26. --MCB 23:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is 100% unadulterated listcruft, containing finely detailed information piled up in an essentially impossible-to-navigate list. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per all above. Verifiable and notable. Compared to some of our other lists, this is gold.UberCryxic 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists of show episodes are notable as millions of viewers watch each one. Arbusto 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nuke from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Great God Almighty, this is TV fancruft at its worst. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems the nom don't like the Cobert Report, and that's not enough to delete an article. - Lex 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I never said anything about hating the show. I'm just questioning it's notability. Instead of making a blind guess as to how I might feel about the subject, why don't you actually read my reasoning first? Giant onehead 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: notable show with recurring elements and characters, much like a drama or comedy, for which we have tons of episode guides there. The argument against this article could have worked if the show was three or four weeks in and not likely to be successful, but as it is an extremely successful show and not a flash in the pan, the article must be kept. Calwatch 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. May eventually need trimming down or splitting (I'd suggest only having a summary for the "significant" episodes, where memorable phrases get coined or where important guests come on, but am not familiar enough with the show to get specific) but it's not like Wikipedia has limited space. Considering how much we've got on Pokemon or Gundams this doesn't seem overly large. Bryan 06:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Colbertcruft. Applaud Calton's nuke from orbit idea: it's the only way to be sure ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. If you don't want episode list articles on Wikipedia then I recommend going through channels to get the related Wikiproject discontinued. Otherwise I see no reason why this can't be treated any different. 23skidoo 12:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and split into seasons. DCEdwards1966 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven't seen the show at all, and in fact I've never even seen an entire episode of The Daily Show (we don't get it over here where I live). However, it seems like a perfectly legitimate page, and of value to many readers. --DeLarge 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - No one is soapboxing here, and the show varies significantly on a day-to-day basis. If you question its notability, look at the amount of hits on Google for the Colbert Report vs. the kings of Wessex. Why shouldn't we have the first list if we have the second? Irregulargalaxies 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment . If there are a lot of raw ghits for colbert-report, there are five (one, two, three, four, five) gbooks hits. For my randomly selected (and dead for over 1300 years) king of Wessex, there were around five hundred. See the difference ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference being that this king of Wessex has had 1300 years in which to have books written about him yet only has five hundred, whereas the Colbert Report has been on the air for roughly a year and already has five? :) Personally, I don't think benchmarks like Google hits or book numbers are very good means of comparing relative "prominence" of subjects, beyond a basic "yeah, other people have heard of this too" threshold. Too many confounding variables. Bryan 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The reason of suggesting deletion has no ground. you claimed the guide violated various parts of WP:NOT and yet you failed to come up any evidence at all. 1)Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - This article is not. 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox - This articale's not. 3) Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - This article's not, plus with at least 10 editors contribution this is hardly "indiscriminate collection of information". If any of the above claims is true, then by your definition every TV episode guide on WP should be deleted. The most pointless arguement of all, which is the number of episode, is simply irrelevant. Since when WP has a guideline states how "few" episodes of a program should be eligible for a guide of its own? Sorry your arbitral magic number doesn't work here. Samic 07:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -- where's Not The TVGuide when you need it? JPG-GR 07:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Then go ahead and try to delete every single TV episode guide on WP... To answer your question: because there is none. Stop trying to make Articles for deletion page into your personal soapbox Samic 07:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We are trying, stop getting in our way! Recury 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This collection of information is very short compared to e.g. the very extensive entries of Family Guy episodes where each episode has its own extensive article. Here in the case of Colbert each episode is summarized very economically.   Spebudmak 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I find this page very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.78.25 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep Maybe it could be split into seasons. But, I see no "soap-boxing." Is this page ruining lives? Is it dividing America? No. Is it a little frivolous? Sure. What the hell! Swatson1978 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I've found this to be a hugely useful resource - it'd be a shame to see so much work deleted - So long as other TV shows have episode guides so should the Colbert Report.MagicBez 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The Colbert Report is not, at heart, a "talk show" like Letterman. It's fiction, with Colbert playing a fictional character. His interview subjects are more like "guest stars" in a situation comedy. The existence of this list to keep track of the show's mythology is very justified.86.53.54.14 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Highly notable show, very divergent episodes. Most importantly though, it's a watercooler show and this page provides people with information on what story was on what episode. --Jirrupin 22:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very good resource, and not unlike many other show episode lists. The work put into this page shouldn't be put by the wayside. Dhp1080 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep You do have some good reasons for deletion but taht doesn't change the fact that this is a very useful page. Granted the optimal solution may be to have this content elsewhere on the great WWW but that is not the case. I think Wikipedia has enough resources to maintain an informative and useful page of information that would likely be forgotten otherwise. I find myself using this page frequently for reference. I would like to see this broken up into pages per season at some point in the near future though. Fsamuels 05:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is the most comprehensive Episode List for the show. Removing it would be unproductive.  Please keep it.
 * Delete per nom. Although I couldn't watch this show even if I wanted to, it's not appropriate, sourcable (you'd need to find a third party who compiled the list and donated copyright), or notable, even if the show is notable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. We do get Comedy central.  It's still not sourcable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep There are numerous other episode guides on Wikipedia which are not being nominated for deletion. If the page is too large, it can be split by season. --BOARshevik 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is clear that the Colbert Report Episode Lst is being singled out due to the episode frequency. Just because something happens often should not disqualify it from wikipedia.  The episode blurbs are short and to the point.  This has NOT become a fanpage.  A lot of notable people appear on the Report and it covers many current events.  This guide provides an efficient way to quickly reference who/what has been covered and when.  This information is not only useful for fans, but also for those researching the relationship between the Report and the news media, current events, notable individuals, political events, etc.  If such a guide were available for the O'Reilley Report it would be useful in the same way.Sturmovik 04:33, 6 October 2006 (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.