Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character) (3rd 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 - /me sees lots of WP:SNOW here. Resurgent insurgent 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been nominated two times so far. However, I firmly believe that it should be deleted. The articles basically talks about how the Comedian acts while he is on stage. Should that belong here in Wikipedia. The simple answer: NO!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 November 2007

• Colbert the fictional character, right? So WP:FICT applies here. And as far as I can tell, it passes all the qualifications with flying colors. Keep. —Quasirandom 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FICT. Colbert's stage persona is a distinct entity from Colbert himself. See Creed Bratton (The Office)—a fictionalized version of the real Creed Bratton. —dustmite 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FICT. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - First of all, I don't exactly like how this article has been nominated for deletion 3 times in the past 5 months, as it feels like a failure to respect consensus. Still, I won't make an issue out of it, as there are always situations where such action is warranted. That being said, the Stephen Colbert's persona on The Colbert Report has received significant coverage in the media, especially recently thanks to Stephen Colbert "running" for President, and therefore the character is easily notable enough to have his own article. This isn't like writing an article about how Richard Pryor's stage performances are different from his real life or even how Jon Stewart on The Daily Show is different from Jon Stewart in real life. In those instances, the comedian is simply being himself, not some "character." With Colbert, though, it's like how Jerry Seinfeld is different from Jerry Seinfeld (character) or how Adam West is not the same as Adam West (character). --Hnsampat 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hnsampat. With the presidential campaign, there's no way Colbert isn't notable as both himself an a character. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I didn't necessarily agree with the previous two nominations for deletion, they did have a fair point in that, at the time, the article was essentially a collection of punchlines from the show and in serious need of cleanup. Well, it has received that and it is continually being worked on, so that's no longer an issue in terms of deletion. With regard to your argument, as most of the others have pointed out already, "Stephen" is a legitimate character in his own right, with a fictionalised history, personality, set of beliefs and so on. He is not comparable to, say, the on-stage persona of Jon Stewart, who's essentially playing himself. Shoemoney2night 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant independent sources show notability of character. Hal peridol 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons expressed adequately above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The character is very notable. Keeping the character's fictional bio separate from the real Colbert's article will reduce confusion. Doczilla 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: No valid reason for deletion given. DCEdwards1966 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. Not only is no clear reason for deletion given, but the information stated is inaccurate. Doczilla 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia certainly accepts a fictional character as a possible topic for an article, and considering Colbert's popularity, I find it hard to argue against it. TSO1D 04:47, 6 November 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.