Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia 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 delete. Any "merge" of material to The Colbert Report would be giving undue weight to Wikipedia on The Report - the section in the main article is plentifully sufficient. If someone really badly wants to put one or two sentences in that article from this deleted one, ask me on my talk page and I'll give you the appropriate fragments.  Daniel  04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and redirect to The Colbert Report for existing links.  Daniel  04:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia on The Colbert Report

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm well aware that this deletion nomination is likely doomed to a snowball close given how popular The Colbert Report is among Wikipedia editors, but I think it should be deleted and merged into The Colbert Report. This seems like an example of Wikipedia giving undue weight to mention of itself; while I understand the instinct, self-promotion in terms of article focus is not something we should strive for. While the subject of Wikipedia has certainly come up several times on his show, it doesn't seem to have been mentioned any more often than bears, global warming as real due to the success of An Inconvenient Truth, the Megyeri Bridge, the number of times he mentioned his broken wrist, etc., etc. Like all of those examples, his occasional references to Wikipedia are part of a running gag, and nothing more. It doesn't merit special attention, even though (like most of his major bits with cultural impact) the fallout of vandalism received some news coverage.

I'm not opposed to the inclusion of this content in principle; I just think it would make for a better balance of coverage if it were relegated to its current subsection at The Colbert Report. Dylan 16:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"'Keep'" This entry is factual, well-researched, and funny as hell. Also, according to Wikipedia's own goal of presenting a global perspective, I find this entry particularly relevant, as I don't have access to the Colbert show here in Taiwan. It's a good thing that I read it when I did, cuz it might be gone tomorrow. Wikipedians who suggested that Colbert did more to promote Wikipedia than he denigrated this venerable institution are right. IMHO, so-called "criticism" of Wikipedia should be given free time here. And, apparently, if Colbert wanted, he could drum up plenty of support for a potential "bears on Colbert" entry. Haha. --Torchpratt 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not entirely sure whether or not it should be merged into the main article, or have some other article created to merge into with other stuff... I guess merge is best. Maybe we should have a mergeto tag instead then. mattbuck 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Well, I propose merging as a way of signaling that the content itself is not at odds with deletion policy, just its placement and breadth; The Colbert Report already has a pretty good summary of this article's contents, so a literal merge isn't really necessary. What I mean is: Let's save what merits saving from this article, stick at The Colbert Report, and then delete the extraneous detail. Dylan 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete I see no reason why this should have its own article just because it refers to Wikipedia. Dougie WII 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete per Dougie WII - insufficient content based on independent sources to justify a separate article. Addhoc 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply delete This information is useful if you're researching this TV show for some reason, but otherwise it's just rehashing of the aired material. There were a large number of articles before on Colbert Report joke words, as well as one big summary article compendium of Colbert jokes. Although there's nothing particularly harmful about having factual, easily verifiable info on WP, this kind of regurgitation or "fan-nonfiction" pretty clearly falls into WP:NOT. Not to mention the obvious conflict of interest and WP:OR. This article has had time to mature, and it's ended up as just masturbation. When someone besides Colbert writes a book about the relationship between Colbert and Wikipedia, then we can have this article. But that book would probably rather focus on the way that pure vanity, which is what defines Colbert's comic character, tends to draw fawning admiration from those with inferiority complexes and/or too much time on their hands. Potatoswatter 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify that last sentence, Colbert is a parody of a characters like Bill O'Reilly, and if you respect him in the same sense as Bill O'Reilly and the conservative community, then you're only part of the parody. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I'm not gonna deny human nature... but this article is also part of the same grand satire and shouldn't be taken seriously. I guess to tie it to one rule it would be WP:POV. You don't "get" this article unless you're inside the joke. Potatoswatter 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere 132.205.99.122 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete &mdash; it's simply not notable as a subject. All of the sources discuss tangentially related things, which already have articles.  It's not really a synthesis, but it's definitely cobbling together loosely related things to try and form an article &mdash; when they would be better treated as part of a cogent overview in, say, Stephen Colbert.  --Haemo 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Potatoswatter. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the place for this. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Stephen Colbert, arguably, has done more to make people aware of Wikipedia than any other human being, taking the service's reputation from nerdy to hip by making it an object of satire. I suppose this could be merged into an article about The Colbert Report or about Wikipedia in general.  However, when one looks back years from now to see why Wikipedia's popularity rocketed in 2007, Colbert will be one of the reasons cited.  Wikimedia Foundation will break records for the amount of donations this autumn, and it's due in large part to the "advertrising" done on The Colbert Report. Mandsford 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So now articles are kept based on their subjects' influence on Wikipedia? Do you have any reliable sources to back up your assertion that Colbert has had such an influence on Wikipedia's popularity or fundraising? Dylan 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, being made fun of automatically makes me less nerdy? Didn't realize that. I should ask for money more often…
 * Actually WP is a very popular American phenomenon, and I've seen it mentioned on news besides CR. Perhaps not as much, but then CR more often directly discusses vanity, which happens to have a cultural connection to WP. I don't see what Colbert can do that various scandals on defamation or fraud, which make the real evening news with a broader audience, don't. Maybe Colbert happens to be your main TV news? Colbert talks about pop culture, and if WP wasn't pop culture it wouldn't get mentioned. If you have a reference, prove me wrong. Potatoswatter 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Being made fun of doesn't make you less nerdy; how you respond to being made fun of determines that. (And yes, it did take me awhile to think of that as a comeback.  I'm slow.) Mandsford 14:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if that weren't ludicrous hyperbole (which I think it is), that would be an argument for mentioning Colbert on the Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems to me this is more an article about criticism and satirization of a very notable subject, Wikipedia, than it is an offshoot of articles about Colbert. Wikipedia criticism is a valid subject, even when its masked in humor, but especially when the satirist is a very notable subject (Colbert Report).  The article handles the subject well, not excessive, and self aware that the article it self becomes part of the joke (to say nothing of this deletion debate).  Deletion will make us Wikipedians look like dilettantes (as if that label hadn't been applied before), but certainly makes the satire just a bit more spot on.  Wag of the finger to the nomination.  Jacksinterweb 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it can be merged, but who passes personal judgment on a collective like WP? Potatoswatter 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this Wikipediacruft as unencyclopedic and not notable .Noroton 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) No, on second thought it is notable.
 * Keep this Wikipediacruft! Noroton 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge or whatever - please, this is an encyclopedia. I beg to see encyclopedic merit in an article that shows how a computer website has been mentioned on a TV show. Now, a mentioning of this topic in an article may be merited, but this being on its own article? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my arguments on the talk page. To reiterate, we shouldn't have articles about how every person/organisation/online encyclopaedia is presented on The Colbert Report. Even if for some reason we decided to have an article Bears on The Colbert Report (which would be plainly ridiculous) that would be more justified seeing as he mentions them a hell of a lot more than he does Wikipedia. If the article is to be believed, Colbert has mentioned Wikipedia about 5 or 6 times on his show... No need to merge, information is already in main article. Hammer Raccoon 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to further clarify my point, Wikipedia's satirising on The Colbert Report is no more deserving of an article than any of his other favoured topics, including bears, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, gay people etcetera etcetera - none of which deserve entire articles devoted to their presentation on a single TV show. Hammer Raccoon 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. RMHED 15:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The population of Colbert self-reference has tripled in the last decade. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as most of this information is available at The Colbert Report or Wikipedia in culture. As for this article, I like it, but then again, I like it. Toad of Steel 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - and so wikiality bites the hand that birthed it. mattbuck 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis - there aren't third-party sources written on this topic that make it stand out from any other; an article called George W. Bush on The Colbert Report could not be created merely by aggregating references to Bush made on the show. - Chardish 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete per WP:NOR, WP:N, and the above. Any chance of taking the current version of the article meta, say to WP:HUMOR? --jonny-mt(t)(c) Tell me what you think! 08:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Per all above. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete per all above. Shoemoney2night 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete Most (if not all) of the information in the article is elsewhere, as Toad of Steel pointed out, and what isn't there can be added in. This topic just isn't notable enough; if it were a 435-part series like Better Know a District, then we'd have another story. Trvsdrlng 22:40, 14 November 2007 (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.