Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on The Colbert Report


 * 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. &mdash;Xyrael / 08:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report
Despite being a Colbert fanatic, I feel that this page is quite unnecessary. It currently lists two neologisms- The Simpsons, this is not. The list consists of truthiness, which has its own article, and wikiality, which is covered in the article dealing with WP in pop culture (among many other articles which mention it). If Stephen can come up with a significant number of widely-used terms, perhaps this page can be recreated; at this point, it's simply redundant. Kicking222 12:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per nom. This seems to be a list/category that can be made in years to come, but not now. -Markeer 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC --Doc 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I don't watch this show, but it making up words seems to get some attention. It doesn't have many at the moment, but it might be easier to just keep it rather than have it be recreated later. That said I have no strong feelings on this one way or other.--T. Anthony 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, so that there is a place to put Colbert's neologisms (since I'm sure he has more to come), per the proposed guideline WP:COLBERT. ~  Porphyric Hemophiliac   §  23:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, I was able to extend it with more "colbert-isms". Perhaps this list just needs to be extended, not trashed. ~  Porphyric Hemophiliac   §  23:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this and WP:COLBERT. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsure - I get the feeling some people want to delete this because they disapprove of Colbert's stated dislike for certain aspects of Wikipedia, rather than because the list is useless. As it stands the list is partially useful, but personally I think if there isn't a list of morrisisms, Colbert doesn't warrant one for his less imaginative word-mashings. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of the neologisms Colbert uses seem to become rather popular, and the list is certainly verifiable and expandable. --Maxamegalon2000 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Be really nice to have a clearinghouse for the Colbertisms that people keep creating articles for. Maybe having this page here will save some of those neologism articles from being created in the first place. VoiceOfReason 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - both to prevent cluttering up the rest of the main namespace, and because, quite frankly, as one of America's leading media personalities (somehow), what he says carries some significant weight. This list serves to further illustrate and expand upon the coverage of Colbert's tendency to coin neologisms, which has been elsewhere reported on. I'm not his hugest fan, and I would say that an individual article for each neologism would be overkill, but a single, easily-maintained list (citing sources) is very appropriate for a show of this size and influence. Captainktainer * Talk 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable "glossary" of one of America's more popular shows. I think this deletion is fueled by the Wikiality incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookykman (talk • contribs)
 * Which part of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" do you not understand? We do not include glossaries.  Or neologisms. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Burn it, I actually was coming to the page to nominate it. Why you ask? They are less notable than episodes and are often one-time gags. Come on, he makes a new one almost every show. Wikipedia is NOT a glossary. Lets give the notable terms (or should I say term) an article and leave the rest to wither away. If a term can't establish itself outside of the show, it does not deserve to exist. Could the people voting keep see WP:NEO (avoid neologisms and never use protologisms [ie. all the content on this page])? This article isn't needed to keep out clutter. Why not just create a short limited list of examples of his neologism on the show's page? The main argument for this seems to be that it will prevent articles about the terms...why can't we just delete them when they come? BrokenSegue 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? ~  Porphyric Hemophiliac   §  00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Are you trying to prevent bad articles by including that bad content into this one? The cure is just as bad as the disease (just less visible). Why should the writers of bad articles dictate what we keep and what we delete. They shouldn't enter into this. BrokenSegue 01:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia does not include neologisms, and having a list of them does not stop them being excluded. Truthiness is one thing, but we already have a perfectly good article on that.  Words like "jazzebration" and "wikiality", meanwhile, have zero currency outside very specific references to very specific items on this show, and thus have no place in an encyclopedia.  Discuss very notable examples in their own articles; discuss less notable examples in the main article on the show; don't discuss non-notable examples at all.  There's no place for this list. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:38, 2 September 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.

List of neologisms on The Colbert Report

 * – (View AfD) (View log)