Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

almost three years after the fact the only impact this dinner has had has been in afd's. it's made them worse. people wantonly violate WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and cite this article. for example, Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, Articles for deletion/Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, etc (do a search for colbert on those pages to see the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS violations). per WP:POKEMON, the solution seems obvious - remove this article per WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT. the citations are all for naught, as well. Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run had lots of citations and it got deleted. rightfully so, too - citations alone are not enough. if this article was deleted no one would care enough to recreate it in this depth because the recentism appeal wouldn't be there.

that this was a former front page featured article is of little consequence - Talk:Torchic was a former front page featured article and look at its fate. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

* Keep: Per JulesH's logic (very well put). DP 76764 (Talk) 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.  The cited policies do not seem to apply; the speech in question seems to have risen above a temporary news item to the point where it was still receiving comment in major media sources six months later, so I don't see how WP:NOT is relevant.  WP:RECENTISM is only an essay, and cannot therefore be used by itself as grounds to delete an article (as it quite correctly notes itself). I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant in the slightest; this article clearly describes an event that was quite important, a comedy performance that has achieved critical acclaim.  In this regard it is no less discriminate than any other article on entertainment events.  This particular event has quite clearly received much discussion in the press, which is one of the measures we use to determine whether the inclusion of something is indiscriminate or not: describing something that is notable is not considered indiscriminate; by the rules described at WP:N there's a clear presumption of notability for this event.  Unless there's a good reason to consider those rules wrong in this case (and I don't see one in your deletion argument), I see no reason to delete the article.  Very few after-dinner speeches are notable, but this one seems to make the mark.  JulesH (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Barry Bonds 714th home run was a 2-sentence article with 2 references, which was merged to a 52k article (i.e., when combined, about the right length for an article). This article is a 5,000 word/47k article with 76 references and the logical merge target being a 68k article (i.e., when combined, well and truly in the "almost certainly should be divided" category according to WP:Article length; in fact, even before merging this article in, Stephen Colbert is in the "probably should be divided" range, so we should be looking at moving content out of that article, not into it). Merging is not an option here, because the parent article is already too long. JulesH (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that Barry Bonds 714th home run only had 2 references is immaterial - there are over 7,000 references available . and whether or not Stephen Colbert's article is too long is also immaterial - the fact remains that this article should, at worst, be a footnote, and at best, be deleted. your assertion that the event "was quite important" is a WP:NOR violation. It did not create profound change in American politics nor was it something that changed the outcome of an election. this dinner is no more notable than the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud and look at the article on that. oh wait - it doesn't exist, even though it, too, is still discussed in the media. see for instance (do a search for "o'donnell"). Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point about the home run article is that it was short, and there was no reason not to merge it into the medium-length parent article, which is what was done. This is a long article, its parent article is already longer than the style guidelines suggest for most articles, therefore merging is not an appropriate action at this point.  The assertion that the event was important is not original research; it is merely a paraphrase of some of the content that is quoted in the article from reliable sources.  Besides, I'm not aware of any policy that prevents us from using original research to decide whether or not a topic is notable, WP:NOR only applies to claims we make about a subject in an article on it. JulesH (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.217.102 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * see WP:JUSTAVOTE. if you cannot contribute to the discussion other than to endorse another persons opinion, you should not be contributing at all Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah, seems like an unbiased admin or editor should make that call, not the nominator. I think it's perfectly fine in a deletion discussion to have the same opinion as someone else.  Did you want him to just copy and paste the same argument, or say "I agree with Julesh"? &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note- I am unstriking DP76764's !vote that I think was stricken unfairly. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't stricken DP76764's vote - he did, per your link. Although that said, I still believe it needs to be stricken all the same. The point of an AfD is to build consensus towards inclusion or deletion. ie. the best argument is what decides the outcome - not the number of people who voted to keep or to delete. DP76764 did not make an argument and so his edits should be removed. personally i believe that redundant arguments ought to be removed as well (a good argument only need be made once - to make it multiple times serves no point other than to overload the closing admin), but i am willing to concede that is logistically more challenging (unless someone does a direct copy / paste, it can be difficult to say whether or not an argument phrased one way would achieve a different effect than the same argument phrased another way) Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I struck myself (and am re-striking) after reading the 'justavote' piece (though I think WP:PERNOM would have been a more appropriate label to have used). AfDs will be very short, if the only posts allowed are unique items from each person.  But that might be a good thing.  DP 76764  (Talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Misterdiscreet, I apologize for my error. I thought you had stricken DP76764's !vote.  I don't know how that happened. Please do accept my apologies. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking my previous two erroneous comments &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrarian delete under WP:NOTNEWS as the sources are from the weeks following the event and therefore establish no lasting significance. WillOakland (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Two of the sources are from 6 months after the event, one is from 7 months after the event, and one is from 13 months after the event. This is a lot longer than one would expect from something that is simply a news story of no lasting significance. JulesH (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A well-written, thoroughly-sourced article that establishes notability using over 70 separate reliable and verifiable sources. I am very disturbed by the collective misinterpretation of WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT as rationalizations for deletion, and only further disturbed by the nominator's removal of contrary opinions. Alansohn (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run has over 7,000 possible citations and the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud has a lot of citations, as well. Heck - Barry Bonds' knee has lots of citations - we don't need a wikipedia article on everything for which a plethora of citations exist. As for your alleged misinterpretations... see WP:VAGUEWAVE. either explain why you believe i'm misinterpreting stuff or hold your tongue. oh wait - does that "hold your tongue" comment now qualify as me removing contrary opinions?  because that's pretty much all I said to User:Dp76764. I didn't add the strikethrough - he did. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run was not deleted. It was merged to its parent article, which due to the violation style guidelines that would occur if we were to do it here is not an option in this case.  Stop using it as a comparable case; it clearly isn't.  An isolated event which takes no more than a handful of sentences to cover in depth is not comparable to an article with nearly 5,000 words. JulesH (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Deleting a featured article is absurd. It's well-written and researched, comprehensive and factual, neutral and unbiased. Perhaps most troubling, the nominator's rationale sounds less like "this isn't an article we should have on Wikipedia" and more like "I'm tired of losing AfD debates because of this thing". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD's are not a contest, however, that does not change the fact that this article is oft cited in violation of WP:POKEMON and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. further, being well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, factual, neutral, and unbiased has nothing to do with its notability. i'm not proposing this article lose its featured article status - i'm proposing it be deleted. besides, how can anyone honestly say "we can revisit this again in a few years" if, a few years from that comment, people will say "it was notable now because it was deemed notable then"? maybe there should be an entry addressing this in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. besides, consensus can change.Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:POKEMON and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are essays not guidelines, so articles can't be in violation of them. Second, I have concerns that you've nominated this article for deletion for the wrong reasons. Much of your rationale for deletion in the nomination focuses on this article's role in other AfD nominations. That's a bad reason to propose deleting any article, and a horrible reason to propose deleting a featured article. If you think there are fundamental reasons why an article shouldn't exist - whether they be moral ones like BLP, legal ones like copyright, or policy ones like NPOV - then by all means nominate that article for deletion. But in this case, you did not justify this article's deletion on those grounds. Your nomination more or less says this article should be deleted because it's preventing other articles from being deleted. For that, I cannot oppose this nomination enough. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * i did start the afd off with the only impact this dinner has had has been in afd's. it ceased to have an impact on what the media was covering 2-3 months after the fact and now it's just a footnote in the annals of irrelevant history - a bit of trivia, if you will. that said, i will concede the point that i may have harped on this articles impact on other afd's too much. although it has had an impact that is not relevant to the discussion at hand (rather what it's relevant to are my motivations for targeting this aticle amidst all the other articles on wikipedia; not that that's relevant to the afd process) Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all it's hardly a forgotten event. The dinner took place in April 2006. The magazine New York clearly remembered it at the end of the year eight months later, since according to our article they called it one of the most "brilliant" moments of 2006. The press corps and media clearly didn't forget about it since, according to our section on the 2007 dinner here, the WHCA's choice of Rich Little was interpreted by many as a direct response to Colbert's performance. And finally, when Craig Ferguson was announced as the headliner for the 2008 dinner, one of Britain's biggest newspapers described Colbert's speech in an article about Ferguson as having "achieved instant classic status" and Colbert as having "demonstrated perhaps the greatest courage of any White House dinner speaker, subtly and hilariously ripping the heart out of the Bush administration, and the US press corps which has failed so dramatically to hold him to account." If a British newspaper still remembers a speech by an American comedian at an American political dinner two years afterwards and speak of the event as a "classic", that might be a signal that the article's about a valid topic. The article itself could perhaps use some updating and revision, but deleting it is completely uncalled for. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I'm not going to bother citing a bunch of policies. I'll just say (a) it meets content guidelines; (b) WP:NOTPAPER; and (c) I'll leave it at that. Taroaldo (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A vote to keep that doesn't cite guidelines carries about as much weight as a vote to delete that doesn't cite guidelines. If we ignore guidelines, anyone can make up whatever guidelines they see fit. also, WP:NOTPAPER does not excuse articles from abiding by predefined notability standards. Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but I don't believe that the deletion arguments hold any water in this case. I stated that in my opinion the article meets the content guidelines.  I could've cited a bunch of WP:___'s, but I really don't see the point in this case. My !vote is pretty clear as is. But if it is to be disgarded that will be up to the deciding admin, not you. Taroaldo (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - if this article were deleted, I would care enough to recreate it at its current depth :P rst20xx (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Trim and merge with Criticism of George W. Bush - Here's my analysis of this in no particular order. (1) The fact that this is a featured article is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. If we made a mistake in the past, and that mistake makes it to FA status, does that mean the mistake shouldn't be corrected?  So this is a FA, but that is irrelevant. (2) The nominator asserts that this article is used in WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments elsewhere.  This is also irrelevant to this deletion discussion.  If editors cite this article whilst making an erroneous OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument somewhere else, then they should be educated; it is not grounds for deleting this article. (3) Essentially, the nominator's argument for deletion boils down to WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT. In other words, the question is: is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article?. Remember, this question is independent of the number of sources in the article. We already know this uses reliable sources and is verifiable.  So the question stands, is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article? I could go either way on this one. For example, a Gnews search shows that as of today, March, 2009, people are still discussing and referring to the event.  This would indicate some degree of historical significance.  On the other hand, I think having a full-blown encyclopedia article on it might be blowing it out of perspective and giving it undue weight in the encyclopedia.  For example, which event is historically more significant: Bush's inauguration or Colbert's 16 minute speech?  I would say the inauguration is a more historically significant event, yet look at the disparity in the length and depth of the articles.  In conclusion, this article is sourced, verified, and the subject to some degree notable.  But to satisfy the neutral point of view policy that we have, we should not give this undue weight.  I recommend we trim this down to a couple of paragraphs and give it a section in Criticism of George W. Bush. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, your comparison to Bush's inauguration is a false one. This article's viability shouldn't be judged based on the relative quality of another article. That's just silly. Second, there is no NPOV issue here. The article's not some big tirade against the Bush administration, but rather a factual and blow-by-blow look of the event. I won't deny it couldn't use a little work, especially in terms of updating it now that we've had two more WHCDs, but saying there are NPOV issues is unrealistic. Should we merge Court-packing plan into a "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt" article? Should we merge "Lewinsky scandal" into "Criticism of Bill Clinton"? Third, your merge idea fails to take into account that he also criticized the media. Moving it wholly into Criticism of George W. Bush is ignorant of the event itself. Fourth, it appears that the Criticism of George W. Bush article will soon be merged into Public image of George W. Bush, where this article barely fits in at all. Fifth and finally, undue weight applies to parts of articles, not articles themselves. It's not like this has four or five subpages dealing with Bush's reaction and the media's reaction and Jon Stewart's reaction. It's just one article. It's not unduly weighing the encyclopedia down. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - well sourced, passed AfD at the time and has maintained notability since. It was arguably a career defining moment for Colbert, and there's enough content to warrant its own article, not just a section elsewhere. The logic of the nominator is also faulty, in that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways - if "X should be kept because Y passed AfD" is invalid, then "X should be deleted because Y failed AfD" is equally invalid. Orpheus (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a feature article  and is well sourced. "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic", WP:NTEMP. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.124.103 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as pointy nomination. Nominating a featured article?  Outright abuse of the deletion process.  AfD does not exist for you to take random swings at things you don't like.  It's all the more inappropriate to try to delete one of our best articles because you perceive it as standing in the way of deleting other content you dislike.--Father Goose (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. Also, I call snowball.  Spikebrennan (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:POKEMON is just a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's a variation on WP:WAX, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's the most infamous example of "Well, what about [X]?" It just happens to be obsolete, now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the nom has a point. I don't think the nom has done a very good job of making it, and I don't think this AFD is a good place to explore it, since it's a general issue and not one specific to this article. (WP:N currently places undue weight on one-time events that make the news.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will speedy close this tomorrow barring any very convincing point for why an article with over 70 references might fail WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the nom mentioned WP:N at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The depth and diversity of the coverage seems sufficient to meet WP:N and move beyond the article being a news report. It wouldn't have reached FA status if sourcing had been inadequate. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not just "an event", but an event which received lasting coverage and commentary from several political commentators over an extended period of time. Almost inclined to call this a speedy keep. If an article has successfully gone through a featured article process, it seems rather improbable that any major concerns over the topic being unencyclopedic wouldn't be catched. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has happened. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The differences between that article and this one are vast. First, Torchic's sources ranged from such esteemed sources as "pokedream.com" and "pokemonelite2000.com", whereas this article only cites such obscure sources as CNN, Reuters, the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. Second, Torchic is about a fictional anime fire bird thing, and this article is about a notable event in which a well-known comedian and satirist criticized both the President of the United States and the American media to their faces. A comparison between this article and Torchic is completely unfair and unreasonable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, possibly Snowball. Even after reading his arguments, I'm not entirely sure what the nominator's point is. On one hand he claims that arguments that it is important is original research, even there are over 70 sources that prove it received substantial, non-trivial coverage from mainstream reliable sources. As one user pointed out, it was even named one of New York Magazine's most important events of the year. Apparently it had some lasting effect, then. He also cites WP:Pokemon as a counter-argument to the fact that this article was a front-page candidate, neglecting the fact that the deletion of other front-page pokemon candidates were part of a sweeping policy change for Wikipedia. it also seems clear that the nominator didn't even READ WP:Pokemon, as even the header of the page (which is an essay BTW, not an actual policy) says "This page in a nutshell: The Pokémon test is moot, now that almost all the individual characters have been merged into a list of Pokémon. This essay describes the historical context of this test.". Besides, the speech itself was released as an audiobook on iTunes and was the best-seller for months, if not years after release. Surely THAT would suggest it is notable, no? The nominator's arguments for deletion are asinine and completely missing the point. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 20:55, 20 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.