Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character)/Archive 1

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, closed early on account of snow. There is substantial sentiment for a merge. If that happens, though, it will be an editorial decision, carried out by WP:PM, WP:TALK, or WP:BOLD. ··coelacan 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This entire article is based on the false premise that colbert's statements are reliable sources about himself. There is no canon, though, or facts of the universe like in Star Wars, many of these were just one-off statements made as a joke. The gaps in between are filled by original research. Unless this article can become something other than a compilation of jokes, it belongs on Wikiality, not Wikipedia. Everything reliable that can be said about the character (that he's a satirical arch-conservative and such) is already in the Colbert Report article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, clean up and redirect to the Colbert Report article. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's to merge? None of it is sourced; all of it is just fake facts from the show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parts of the article stating elements of the character should be added to either the Colbert Report or Stephen Colbert. However the fake bio should be scrapped altogether. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fake statements, fake facts, etc? If we delete this for such reasons, might as well as delete every fictional character Bio, starting with Spiderman and every other manga article. Its a fictional character, thus a fictional bio Unregistered user browsing ] 2:27, 1st June 2007 (UTC)
        • There are numerous secondary sources and a documented, consistent canon for superheros. This is just a bunch of one-liners strung together. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've never understood why this article is separate from Colbert's biography. Do we have a separate Bill Cosby (character) article for Bill Cosby? YechielMan 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, but there is a separate article for Jerry Seinfeld. --Toxicroak 08:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Bill Cosby's character on The Cosby Show was named "Clifford Huxtable." :) --Hnsampat 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep of course we can use his statements as a source. This article is perfectly ok among those on fictional characters (ie Captain Hero).--BMF81 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, WP:WAF disagrees with you. Captain Hero is a pretty atrocious article, too, chock full of original analysis of the character. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I know, I know. The article has problems and is a fancruft magnet. But its major problem is that it's written from an in-universe perspective. The Colbert character has been written about plenty (e.g this week's Newsweek, performed before the US President, and can easily pass WP:FICT. The fan-OR and fake bio aspects need to be substantially trimmed, and citations found that deal with the character overall. I think there's significant material that could be written that would be too much for a subsection in the Colbert Report article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Stephen Colbert. No-one would deny the notability of Colbert and his parodic character, but this should be found at his main bio page, until compelling discussion there suggests that a fork of this nature would be beneficial. The WP:OR and citation issues raised above are in many ways a canard. Eusebeus 09:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Dhartung. --TM 10:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Stephen Colbert and prune mercilessly. This level of obsessive detail is completely unnecessary and can be adequately covered in the main article. Otto4711 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - I don't think that this article is beyond hope quite yet. Yes, it does currently fail WP:WAF, mainly because of its heavily in-universe perspective, but after cleanup, there may still be enough material to merit keeping the article. If, after extensive cleanup, there ends up not being enough material to sustain a full article, then we can merge it into either Stephen Colbert or The Colbert Report. (By the way, I wouldn't put it past Colbert to actually talk about this deletion discussion on his show, especially if his article ends up deleted.) --Hnsampat 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Colbert Report. The persona Colbert adopts is more to the point of the show as satire than the guy himself. --mordicai. 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To everyone advocating a merge -- there is already a summary of the character in the Colbert Report article; there's nothing in this one that isn't in there but fake facts and original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete As others said, most of this is cobbled together by taking a bunch of one-liners at face value. The concept of an article about the character is not out of the question, but it would need a 100% rewrite. --Jaysweet 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to actor's page. JJL 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -because i think that this is a part of a highly-rated news show and that it is diferent from the colbert report.
• Keep 1. per Dhartung 2. WP:FICT-he's a character created by Colbert so of course there are going to be fake facts just like any other fictional character. He has developed a cult following so there's the notablity. Like other articles on fiction and fictional characters I've read, any WP:SYN needs to be weeded out. MrMurph101 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is just like any other fictional character that has a Wikipedia page. Only in this case both the actor and the character have the same name. And the information on the character is way too much for it to be merged with the main article. Mkeranat 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Mkeranat said this just happens to be a fictional character who shares the same name as the actor who portrays him. --Toxicroak 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article itself needs major work, but it's creation allows a seperation between information about the character and the actor, who have obviously led very different lives. Plus, if the show keeps promoting the wikipedia, more users will be visiting in the future. It would be better to give them a proper outlet than just trying to supress them. --GoNINzo 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs to be cleaned up and sourced, but neither feat should be too difficult. The character is important and clearly distinct from the real person, and therefore doesn't fit within the Colbert's article (though I'll admit that the line between the two is more blurred than with traditional actors/characters). Jeff Silvers 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mkeranat. --JayJasper 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.