Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Colbert Report recurring elements


 * 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, since this is a discussion, not a vote. The arguments to keep basically amount to arguments to keep The Colbert Report, not the article under discussion here. The arguments against this particular article are very strong and no one successfully countered them. —Angr 08:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Colbert Report recurring elements
As the article defines itself at the top, it is "a partial catalog of...recurring segments, running gags, catchphrases, quotes, and other miscellany." I've had a primarysources tag at the top for over three weeks now, and a note on the talk page for a few days, and absolutely nothing has been done to improve this article over that period of time. To repeat what I said on the talk page:


 * This article is full of unsourced original research and speculation (everything colbert "seems" to be), and I doubt sources other than the show itself can be found for 90% of what's in the article, and even many of those things would count as excessively in-depth plot summary. It reminds me of the sort of excessive cataloging that occured for YTMND and Homestar runner before we banished such research to their own wikis.  Now that Stephen Colbert has wikiality, I think we can transwiki most of this over to there and get all the original research out of wikipedia.

Precedents for this seem to include And especially A list of recurring jokes without secondary sources is unverifiable original research, and doesn't belong in wikipedia. Things like Truthiness, which have recieved major media attention, and are therefore verifiable from sources, already have their own articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of YTMND fads (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Slashdot trolling phenomena (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Slashdot subculture (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes on Slashdot


 * Delete, original research, as nominated. Transwiki if you must keep this material! SunStar Net  ; 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, under WP:NOR, television programs are legitimate sources. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Bloated amount of material that is really not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Total trash, precedents are solid, and most of the other Colbert stuff should be trashed too. It violates most elements of WP:NOT. It violates a fair amount of elements of WP:NOT.Tony fanta 22:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, under WP:NOR, television programs are legitimate sources. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete although there might be some scraps in there worth merging to the main article and/or episode list, if anyone has lots of time on their hands. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Colbert has become quite the phenomonon in popular culture, Stephen being listed as one of the most influential people in 2006. The Report is not YTMND, Slashdot, or Homestar Runner. This article serves as a great reference point for anyone know wants to know more about the show, and personally, I can say that have in the past found the article useful when wanting to learn more about Colbert. Please don't be deletionist, this article could definitely use a lot of citations, but under WP:NOR, television programs can be used as primary sources. The statements about the recurring themes are sourced - the source is the show itself. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't explicitly cite the subject of the article in cases where the subject is also a primary source - it's considered to be implied. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim that you can cite a source to establish recurring themes within the source has been proven false before, as demonstrated by the deletion of the slashdot articles. Your claim that Colbert is more important than those sites, so we should relax our standards, is not true at all either.  Themes in Star Wars was deleted because it was a pile of original research (someone went and documented all the coincidences they saw between the movies), and star wars is more important culturally than colbert and all these others combined.  I'm not deletionist, I only believe in deleting articles when they fundamentally fail policy, and this article absolutely does so by being impossible to verify without redoing all the research yourself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that the above user (Cielomobile) had striked out some of my vote. That's pretty cold and I think their vote should be thrown out. Tony fanta 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, this is a discussion, and people strike out comments once they have been addressed all the time (see RfA discussions). Notice that I did not actually delete part of your comment; I just striked it out (because it was complete rubbish). You are supposed to strike out a comment once you rescind it and then add the new comment (and thus, I am adding in your previous comment, with a strike through it, to note your original resoning, for context). -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 05:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Users may strike out their own comments, but modifying those of another user is generally frowned upon. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Night Gyr, I'm sure there are a number of websites that document some of the recurring themes (see colbertnation.com). Furthermore, as described in WP:NOR, television programs are acceptable as sources. My fingers are getting tired from echoing myself now. Also, you can view all of Colbert's episodes on comedycentral.com, so the themes are easily verifiable (and the episodes could be cited, if someone were to put the work in). -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 05:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then cite them. There's been a tag on the article for almost a month asking for sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said elsewhere in the article, I don't really have the time at the moment to undertake such a task. Right now, I'm just trying to make sure the article isn't unjustly deleted. Once real life permits, I will try to work on the article. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Stephen Colbert has a multitude of information about him necessary to the internets. Unlike most television celebrities, he is not one-sided. Therefore, multiple facets of him came be expressed through this article. In addition, the sorry display of naysayers in this discussion is sickening. As a roving gang of disaffected morons, the above wish to express the power they don't have by deleting information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.118.77 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Stephen Colbert is a well-known public figure, and his show The Colbert Report is watched by millions. That said, I agree that the recurring segments section needs a good overhaul. I agree also that the article should be edited and elements moved to wikiality wiki. There is a need to keep this article but in a heavily modified form. I object to unlisted Tony Fanta's comment about trashing most of Stephen Colbert as this sounds like complete biase against a popular figure. I further suggest that his vote be disregarded for that reason. We must be objective about any decision to remove content.Kerojack, Argenta 22:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had cleanup and sourcing requests on the article for a while. Nothing has been done for weeks.  Even if it was improved, I doubt there'd be enough left for a separate article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We still don't delete articles that people neglect at Wikipedia. When an article fails a good article or featured article nomination because of lack of citations, it doesn't get deleted. When I have time, I will be sure to provide some more citations, but unfortunately, I really don't have enough time to undertake such a large task right now. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 17:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It's OR, and any relevent info should be mentione in The Colbert Report. Edgecution 23:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge  any encyclopedic and verifiable content into the main article on the show. This reads like a second main article, and needs some cutting down to the more important material.Edison 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Complaining about OR in this matter is bogus, the only "research" that really can be done is watching the show (or is there a book or website cataloguing this stuff that I'm not aware of?), the information is useful and fairly important, given that the Report has a disproportionate amount of influence on American mass culture. On top of that, including even the barebones of the information in this article in the main The Colbert Report article would put that article far over the limit, so merging is, I think, out of the question. Furthermore, I suspect that if this AfD were a little better-publicized, WP:SNOW would apply, though of course that's just a sneaking suspicion rather than a well-reasoned opinion. No, the only option is to leave the article but conduct a massive overhaul. Lockesdonkey 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How would WP:SNOW apply? That is only when it is clear the way an AFD will end up, which is clearly NOT the case here. Also, an article HAS to be able to pass WP:RS. This article can be greatly slimmed down and turned into 1 section in the main Colbert Report article. TJ Spyke 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole point of WP:NOR is that if we don't have secondary sources we don't include it, rather than go and do the research ourselves. Your claim that the only research that can be done is to watch the show is exactly the same reason that this is up for deletion.  The slashdot lists were deleted because the only way to verify them would be to read slashdot; this is no different. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the fact that under NOR, television programs are acceptable sources. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 05:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Acceptable sources for what? Their own plots?  This article is analyzing the show, not just summarizing it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the page needs to be heavily edited and rewritten in places, but in a show like this that is very much based around its recurring elements, (the word, better know a district etc) the page is very relevent. Precedent for keeping is The Daily Show recurring elements (although this needs work too). Raemie 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a precedent for keeping; it's never been nominated for deletion. I was considering it, but it's not as bad as this one and I figured one debate at a time would be better. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a precident because it shows that tv programs such as this can have recurring elements pages and not have them deleted. Raemie 13:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By that logic, Night, because an article on a major politician has never been nominated for deletion, there is no evidence that all articles on major politicians shouldn't be deleted, and we should delete the page on Carole Migden, seeing as it has no citations. Silly, isn't it? -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 17:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Biography articles have been nominated for deletion countless times; now we have WP:BIO to turn the precedents into guidelines. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand the need of Colbert-fanbois trying to sabotage every relevant discussion about the articles that are involved with him or the show.  I will not deny that he is a somewhat popular figure, but he is not a phenomenon, his show has been on the air on cable for 1 year, and there is no guarantee that he will be on more than another, possibly likely, but WP is not a crystal ball.  I don’t see how he warrents as many articles as he has.  Just because a small handful of editors like the show does not mean that there is a place for all these articles.  WP will not make any sense in the future if all this fancruft is contained.  And I don’t see where a single one of the keep votes should have any weight to them.  They just say NPOV things like “He is a phenomenon, we must worship him and add every detail about his show possible.”  I don’t like or dislike him, but please, let’s just keep things simple and not spread every reference or so-called facts all over.  And why would SNOW apply here?  That's just a really blantant comment to make, you just assume if I advertise this AFD (which is not the point, we are discussing, hopefully among editors with concerns over notability rather than if they like something) that everyone would vote keep?  A lot of valid votes are made for delete, and that is just fine. Tony fanta 23:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who's sabatoging this discussion? I striked part of your comment because it is simply not true (see my comment). As for the reference to WP:SNOW, I think the editor probably meant WP:IAR. However, WP:RS is not even a policy; it's just a guideline. Therefore, it's not even a rule, and certainly not a valid reason for article deletion. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 23:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry. Lockesdonkey 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines are just guidelines too, and they've led to the deletion of thousands of articles.  Like notability, WP:RS is just a way to ensure verifiability and WP:NPOV without original research.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just an observation: I disagree with Tony Fanta's assertion that A lot of valid votes are made for delete, and that is just fine. as there are also quite a few requests to keep the article. No matter. I admin the Colbert Wikia, and I will take this article unedited, lock stock and barrel if the delete camp votes outweigh the keep camp. In fact, since editors like Tony want the article gone, I assume there is no issue with me taking the entire article and republishing it? Let me know guys and I will do this, no problem Kerojack, Argenta 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that transfer, but you are totally incorrect of your opinion of my statement. All the delete votes here are valid, and just because you think one way doesn't mean it's the right one. Tony fanta 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kerojack (Pulp)- You can do that anyway, (e.g. you don't need consensus) as long as your republishing complies with the GNU Free Documentation License. About.com does it all the time.68.156.190.96 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * whoops, I forgot to sign in!Jcembree 03:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails WP:OR, WP:NOT. Fancruft, original research, misuse of Wikipedia as a fansite. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, go make a Colbertwiki on Wikia or something instead Bwithh 00:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, then, delete all the Dragon Ball Z and Naruto episode summaries. Also, two of the three are basically the same argument, and OR can be addressed by changing the article to having a bit more descriptions, and less commentary.  That's kinda condescending that you keep saying 'make a Colbert wiki', as if the delete is already decided, and clouds the issue as well. If you hate clicking, DO NOT click here. 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia = Fancruft. Enjoy your goddamn paradox.
 * There apparently already is a Colbert wiki at http://wikiality.com/ I don't actually feel like checking, but probably everything in this article is already covered there. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That wiki is a parody; this article is contains actual facts. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 06:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all keep votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebrock (talk • contribs)
 * this isn't a vote, so you're going to need a rationale and all of the keep votes are facing rebuttals or objections. Do you have an argument why this should be kept that hasn't been addressed? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The delete voters need to do the same then, as users like TJ Spyke provided little if any rationale. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 06:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; Wikiality is a parody, like Uncyclopedia, not an appropriate place for serious Report-related fact archiving. Sailorptah 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great point. The ideas of putting it on a Colbert wiki presume that the Colbert wiki is actually serious. I don't know how many of the delete voters have visited his wiki, but it's an absolute joke. This is a serious article that actually documents facts, and there really isn't any place for it other than this wiki. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 06:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There are plenty of alternative outlets for original research in the world, ranging from book publishers to one's own personal web site.  Wikipedia is not a free wiki hosting service nor a publisher of first instance.  There are plenty of people who have published books about their favourite television programmes, based upon the primary research of watching those programmes.  Wikipedia articles should be based upon such secondary sources.  They are not venues for performing the primary research directly, or substitutes for writing such books.  Uncle G 10:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And Memory Alpha is written from an in-universe perspective. They have different standards, but it;s a better place than here for this stuff. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, under WP:NOR, television programs are acceptable as sources, so why is this a problem? It is implied that the show is the source, and this article is in no way very analytical, so it really shouldn't be an issue. If you think it's a problem that there are not enough inline citations, fix it yourself instead of taking the easy way out by deleting the article. Personally, I find there to be nothing wrong with the use of the show as a source. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 05:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I, too, strongly suggest we do not do try to transwiki this information to Wikiality.com due to the fact that the Wikiality.com site makes no hesitation that the facts contained within it are "truthiness" and not true facts. The Wikiality.com site makes no attempts at keeping the information on the site to any kind of standards.  The pages are filled with made up facts, and the owners of the page encourage the editors of the site to make up outragous claims about Colbert on the site.  That's the whole concept behind "wikiality" to begin with.  While Wikiality.com can be a very entertaining site, it was never intended to be any kind of actual fact-based encyclopedic-style page.  It is, point blank, a parody site.  These Wikipedia wiki pages do have integrity and are documented as much as possible.  This page is the only site on the web with information like this about The Colbert Report that is well-maintained and held to some kind of standards by a community of people with fluent knowlege about the subject (i.e. the fans who watch the show). Nofactzone 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As said above, even if no other place currently exists to hold the information, that's not a reason we need to keep it here. If it's only at its current level because it's written by expert, then it fails the requirement that articles be written by citing sources, rather than experts spouting their opinions.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are multiple places that the information could be housed - but not in a Wiki format. For example, I could easily put this information on my Stephen Colbert fan site, where according to discussion here it may be a better place for it to be, but I choose not to because I realize the benefits of having multiple editors maintain the information.  Instead, I simply link to this page when using information from it.  Keeping the information here on Wiki helps it to be monitored and edited more frequently and by more editors, which keeps it more accurate and relevant.  Banishing the page to Wikiality.com virtually ensures its demise and its accuracy due to the fact that it will receive many less hits and will not be maintained to the accuracy level that information is maintained here on Wiki.  It is hard to cite sources for information such as this television show, since the primary source is the show and since attempts to cite mainstream news articles and blogs as sources tend to be rejected by the administrators.  This page gets updated on an almost daily basis due to the fact that relevant information from the show can change the status of different recurring elements so quickly.  It's hard to cite sources when the information is so current that there are no sources to cite.  It has been mentioned that the show is only one year old.  Any books that come out within that short of a time period about virtually any pop culture phenomenon would be geared towards fans anyway, and not have much historical significance (or much documentation), and anything with true historical weight will not appear until long after the show has made its impact. I would support moving this site to be a sub-site of The Colbert Report or List of The Colbert Report episodes, but I do think that this information is relevant to the subject of The Colbert Report.Nofactzone 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something here, I'd say cleanup and move to The Colbert Report Recurring Segments or even List of Colbert Report Recurring Segments. I agree that some of what's in the article now is problematic under NOR, but I disagree with the assessment that all of it is. According to NOR, it's acceptable to use television shows as a primary source, as long as one is only making purely descriptive claims and not including original analysis. The fact that Colbert does a word-of-the-day segment in every episode, for example, is descriptive, and not original analysis. -- Bailey(talk) 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep television show are legitamate sources. Jon513 11:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultimate Keep What's unverifiable about information taken directly from a television program? --Savethemooses 18:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because most of this information isn't from the program, it's analysis and speculation about that information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. True, there is a fair amount of analysis that is original research, but the majority of the information is simply observation that involves no depth of analysis and could be cited with segments from the show. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - With a little bit of cleanup, it should be a fine article. dposse 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No one's done anything to improve this article in months. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Come now, that's no reason to delete an article. Personally, I was unaware of this until the AfD was posted, and I will honestly make an attempt to improve the article once real life permits. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Laziness and neglect are not valid reasons to delete a potentionally good article. I bet if we really took the time to rewrite it and make it encyclopedic, it would be perfectly fine. dposse 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said in the nom, if you cleaned this article up, you'd have nothing left. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's complete bullshit. dposse 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge How can you document and cite the sources of this information except the television show itself? This theme itself is not substantial enough to have its own page, but merging verifiable information would provide more explanation on the main page. deathmf 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I must reiterate: The recurring elements article is already too long. It's 89 KB already. The  basic Colbert Report article is also getting a bit big, at 37 KB. Even if we kept only the barebones of the article, we'd have to split this or some other section off all over again. Lockesdonkey 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultra-Strong Keep - This is one of wikipedia's most comprehensive articles. It would be a HUGE mistake to delete it. --Mr Beale 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comprehensiveness doesn't mitigate the ways in which this article violates policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page needs a lot of work, and is currently mostly based on primary material (the show itself), but that's not to say that it can't be improved. The show has gotten a ton of press coverage, and I'm pretty certain that some of that coverage has at least mentioned, if not discussed to some extent, the various recurring elements.  In particular, Better Know a District has been discussed in the LA Times, for example, and "the Word" is discussed in most interviews/articles on the show itself and the news coverage regarding Truthiness and Wikialty.  There's plenty of room for improvement with appropriately sourced, verifiable, and non-OR content. Schi 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Better know a district already has its own article, The Word ought to be in the main article if it isn't, and the rest is just analysis and speculation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Better Know a District has its own article? Wow, that's news to me. But nevertheless, respectfully, I think you're oversimplifying a bit, Night. There's a lot of original analysis and speculation in that article which needs to be dealt with, but the lists of recurring segments and characters are fair. Lists of minor characters are explictly permitted by our deletion policy on minor characters. Recurring segements, on the other hand, can form the basic anatomy of a variety/comedy show like Colbert's, particularly when these segments are specifically denoted by onscreen titles. This is still far less detail than having an article for every episode, which has been upheld in the case of Category:Simpsons_episodes, or List of vehicles in The Simpsons, which survived three nominations for deletion, or the individual articles on every recurring sketch on Saturday Night Live (see list here). As for the examples you list above, lists of Slashdot jokes and the like are inherently different, because we allow using TV shows as a primary source but not forums and social networking websites. "Themes in Star Wars" probably should have been rebuilt from the ground up rather than entirely nuked -- Themes in Blade Runner is decently referenced, and quite a good read. Again, I suggest renaming this or possibly splitting into multiple articles in order to tighten the focus and avoid attracting cruft. -- Bailey(talk) 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Precedence I have seen, such as articles related to The Simpsons, is that information taken from simply watching the show is acceptable, while information from behind the scenes and out-of-universe must be sourced. The article is not analysis and speculation as claimed by the user who wishes to delete the page, but a recording of notable recurring elements, nothing more. What work could be done is specification, possibly in terms of instances a subject is mentioned, to be deemed a recurring element. Also, just because no one has attempted to improve it does not mean no one will. In the vein of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you cannot predict that no one will make an effort and nominate it based on that prediction. -- Viewdrix 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What simpsons-related articles have survived AfD? I've seen several deleted. Who decides what's a notable recurring element, other than through analysis and speculation? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous, Night. If we used that logic, all lists that involved any amount of thinking to create would be deleted. There have been recurring elements articles for plenty of other subjects (see Bailey's comment above). -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 03:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to have to think--we're supposed to be able to look it up somewhere else. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there is a difference between original research and thinking. If you're implying that we're just supposed to copy other sources, you are mistaken (that would border on plagiarism). A number of lists involve more than just looking at secondary sources, for example List_of_calypso-like_genres, the creation of which without a doubt involved some level of thought. Even if you have sources, you still have to decide which items deserve to be on the list! But really, I digress, that's completely beside the point. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every one of those has a source to identify it as calypso-like. None of them require expertise on the part of wiki-editors to identify which are really calypso-like. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with the idea that it can stand to use some cleanup. Like that biography section to be merged into Stephen Colbert (character)- I think we've waited long enough for that. - The Lake Effect 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep IMHO, this passes the Pokemon Comparative Notability Test. It's huge and should probably be stripped down to much more basic descriptions, but that's no reason to delete it. &mdash; Brent Dax 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is just stupid. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but trim down to the more noteworthy elements. The article is verifiable (by watching the show). I agreee that it pushes the boundaries of NOR, but the nature of all these articles, once they get past a very basic summation of the television show (or other media), fall into that category. A list of characters, if there is no other references than the show, could be construed as OR.  A slippery slope we already descended LOL  Seaphoto 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure how many of the editors here have read the new Rolling Stone cover story excerpt, but there's an interesting quote by Colbert in there regarding Wikipedia:  "COLBERT: While my character's history may not be always perfectly consistent, if you, like, are Web-crazy, and there are a few of them out there, you go to Wikipedia. There's my bio and there's my character's bio, and then there's my character's history, which is slightly different than my character's bio."  I just found that amazingly funny in lieu of the discussions happening here.  Nofactzone 05:52, 1 November 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.