Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert Day

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert Day

Colbertcruft: NN holiday, celebrated only in Oshawa, Ontario, that hasn't even happened yet. It's already covered in the main article, The Colbert Report. We don't need to cover every single bit Mr. Colbert does on his show, and I don't think we should allow the unquestioning obedience of the 'Colbert Nation' to gain the show undue weight on Wikipedia. -- Vary | Talk 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just discovered this article and so havn't added the sources, but two national stories by The Canadian Press agency have covered the event: [1], [2]. Furthermore, the national Canadian Broadcasting Company news program Saturday Report had a 6 minute segment or so on the bet on the January 28 episode, though I'm trying to find video now. -- Viewdrix 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I failed to see the Associated Press article already on the page, and whatever credibility is gained from the lo-res image of the newspaper article used as the article's main image. Cumulatively, however, I believe this satisfies notability issues. -- Viewdrix 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: third Canadian press article. -- Viewdrix 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not sourced, I'm saying it's not notable. Two different things. Not everything that has a few newspaper articles written about it also needs a Wikipedia article. The sourced information can go in other existing articles - and, in fact, it already has. -- Vary | Talk 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Come on, I think we've done enough to help him promote his lame show. This "day" is but another self-promotional gimmick that the mayor and people of Oshawa have been nice enough to go along with. But enough is enough. Merge it into the main show article Shawn in Montreal 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that the number of articles already associated with Colbert has no effect on the main debate here, notability of Stephen Colbert Day, and your comment of "his lame show" might point to a bias on your part in voting? -- Viewdrix 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work in PR. I know a promotional gimmick when I see one, regardless of how many clippings one can cite. Biased or not, you have my vote. Shawn in Montreal 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to Stephen Colbert/The Colbert Report. Certainly does not need its own article. Nobody will care about this in one year, or five years, or a hundred years. --- RockMFR 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's to be a yearly thing, that's not necessarily true. -- Viewdrix 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need a separate article for every incident that merits the attention of the media for fifteen minutes. If this has any encyclopedic value, a line in the main Colbert Report article will suffice. The examples of incidents involving Jackie Mason and Lenny Bruce in the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident AfD sum it up nicely. Agent 86 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cast my vote already but allow me to expand. If Colbert, tomorrow, in an act of pure comic genius, sticks his finger up his ass, I would not expect there to be an WP article on Steve Colbert's Ass. There should, however, be a mention of this meritorious incident in the Colbert article. That's what this "day" is. Citing article after article mentioning the "day" only proves that the show has promotional weight, it does nothing to establish true notability. It's a stunt, not a true civic holiday, so mention it in all its detail in the main Colbert show article. Shawn in Montreal 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me compare this to another Colbert event that made the news this month: when Colbert and his victim of parody, Bill O'Reilly, [swapped guest appearances on each other's shows. In that case, it received similar attention to Stephen Colbert Day (may I also suggest, in a side note, that non-Canadian editors may not grasp the relatively grander levels of attention this story is getting in this country, and Wikipedia is not just an American encyclopedia. Although as "Of Montreal" is indicative, this does not affect your view. This note is merely for others). However, where O'Reilly and Colbert's guest appearances were a similar promotional event, they did not affect the world in any way outside of their respective shows. As such, information on this still fairly notable event was relegated to their respective show's articles. In the case of Stephen Colbert Day, however, this stunt does have effect on the real world: Oshawa, Ontario is now made to celebrate Stephen Colbert Day every year as a result. Again, may I suggest that your extreme dislike for Colbert's shtick and the recent Colbert-inspired Wikipedia vandalism you aided in preventing (I saw your request to have Stephen Colbert Day locked from editing on Talk:Stephen Colbert) is such a strong bias it makes you ignore these notability factors and differences to some promotional stunts? -- Viewdrix 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, reverting vandalism is a... bad thing? As is asking for a block to stop further vandalism? Bizarre logic. What should I have done. Celebrated it? I've been upfront about my bias regarding the show, Viewdrix. What about you?Shawn in Montreal 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying your bitterness over the vandalism, and sarcasm here, isn't helping your case. As for am I a fan of the show? Yes. But it is not affecting my vote. Should another nomination for deletion of List of neologisms on The Colbert Report come up, for instance, I would vote for deletion, whatever that is worth. -- Viewdrix 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I probably would not vote for deletion of List of neologisms on The Colbert Report because in that instance, the article is not claiming to be anything its not. It's a list of expressions coined by an admittedly popular show, whatever I think of it. Fine. Shawn in Montreal 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What the hell is wrong with another definition? The site has a definition on "The Friend Zone", yet having an article on this is bad? It sounds to me like you're all just sore that, once again, he trashed the site on his show. Now, I'm not saying he should do that, I'm merely saying that your whining HERE is only serving to give him more material, which makes his "lame show" more popular, which means he'll just CONTINUE making wikipedia-based shows. I don't see how having this definition up in general serves any discredit to wikipedia, nor do I say how it could possibly be a bad thing - it's a "Day", it's not like it's saying "Stephen Colbert LOL!" made for every thing he said. I admit, he has a lot of stuff here, but that's like saying Martin Luther King (No, I'm not comparing Colbert to King, it's just an accurate analogy here) shouldn't have a definition for Martin Luther King Day but instead should just have it under a little heading in his full definition of him. Or, for a fairer comparison, that International Talk Like a Pirate Day and Day of the Ninja should not exist as articles, but should rather just both fall under Pirates vs Ninjas. Yet, of course, NONE of you complain about that - you only whine about this day because, boo hoo, Colbert insulted (in his SATIRICAL CHARACTER, might I remind you) your precious wikipedia. And remember - the definition for both DotN was up MONTHS (or at least weeks) before the actual day was first celebrated, so your argument of "it hasn't been scheduled yet, it's not a crystal ball omg!" doesn't work here.

Seriously, get over this childish anger (and bias which, again, is NOT allowed on wikipidia), and don't come back with this idea again until you have better reasoning. Kay? Kay. Aguyuno

I'm angry? YOU MAY WANT TO GIVE THE CAPS KEY A REST. First off, an unsigned in vote to keep doesn't carry much weight, If you want to vote, have the courtesy to sign in. Second, comparing Martin Luther King Day to Steve Colbert "Day" is absurd, if not racist: Martin Luther Kind Day is a national holiday, full of historical social importance. You're making the same claim for Steve Colbert "Day"? Wow. Mind-boggling. I'm not familar with the last two days mentioned but I'd be happy to entertain a deletion vote on those two, sure. Lastly, there are a lot of people who do happen to care about "our precious Wikipedia" and don't enjoy seeing it hijacked for a silly promotional stunt. Sorry if you can't get that. I happen to think this site is a hell of a lot more important than your beloved TV show. Shawn in Montreal 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Civility, please stay civil during discussions. -- Viewdrix 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although Wikipedia:Vandalism pertains, as well. Shawn in Montreal 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lmfao@Agreed - you DO realise that he was responding to YOUR post with that? Not mine? Anyway, given your entire argument was based on semantics, coding errors (Which I apologise for; I'm new to editing pages. Is there another way (honestly asking) to post in this particular place without editting the whole page? Cause I've yet to see how... Anyway, my name's editted in this time; aguyuno), LOL WIKIPEDIA ROX, and an accusation of racism (which has nothing to do with ANYTHING, seeing as how I specifically stated I did NOT compare the two. It's just a logical fallacy), I won't grace your post with anything more than an LOL. Thank you for proving my point entirely. Now, again, I request - please leave until you can come up with better reasoning to delete this other than spite and baseless personal attacks. Kay? Kay. Aguyuno

I was responding to both Aguyuno and Shawn in Montreal, though even if I was speaing to one, that does not mean the other is excluding from Wikipedia guidelines. Now, again, please remain civil. -- Viewdrix 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right and in fact I did assume Viewdrix was addressing me, as well, when cautioned about civility. Point well taken. Shawn in Montreal 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Personally, I love Colbert and the Report, and I watch it every time I get the chance (less often than I'd prefer)... but I'm not so eager to start an article for every stunt ever featured on the show. I could be persuaded and I'm open to debate, but that's my current thought, here. Luna Santin 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was amused to find this article. The only purpose it seems to serve is deflecting trivial additions to the Saginaw Spirit, Oshawa Generals, and Oshawa, Ontario articles. Flibirigit 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You would think, but a look at those article's histories will show that it's not really helping. -- Vary | Talk 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad posting this, as Viewdrix has made some valid comments about my tone here, but I should also point out his Colbert related vandalism to Soft commodity which had to be reverted by another editor. So let's be honest about our biases, here. That's all. Shawn in Montreal 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. For what it's worth, I reverted about 5 similar edits to other pages before searching "commodity" to see if there was any vandalism of obscure commodity-related pages, and I was curious as to how long it would take to see a revert on a fairly unedited page (the last few of only a handful edits were in December and November). It was low level vandalism that affected an obscure page as part of an experiment, and mentioning it here, I thought, would be blown out of proportion, though I'll thank Shawn in Montreal for not doing so. I was curious as to the result and decided it would harm no one, though it was wrong. If that rebukes all my valid arguments about the notability of Stephen Colbert Day, so be it. My apologies. -- Viewdrix 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - As per Luna Santin's reasoning. Am I biased? My truthiness-filled heart tells me that five years from now, Stephen Colbert Day will eclipse the significance of Christmas and Kwanzaa combined. Not now, but soon. A standalone article was definately premature. - The Lake Effect 05:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. It's misleading to suggest that Colbert Day is a holiday observed in Oshawa, since at present the "holiday" really not observed by anyone. The mayor lost a bet, and now there's an obscure city holiday somewhere on the books -- that doesn't really make it much more than a legal technicality, and an amusing anecdote about Colbert, Gray, and the Generals. There's really not much to the story, and the relevant bits of it could very easilly be accomidated elsewhere. -- Bailey ^(talk) 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ironically, this article makes no mention that the challege by Mayor Gray was a publicity stunt initiated by KX96, and disc jockey Terry Archer. The challenge was broadcast live during a morning show on the radio staion. KX96 also arranged for highly discounted bus fare to Saginaw for Generals fans. Flibirigit 07:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Colbertcruft. Far too much of this crap already. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. —An gr 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Stephen Colbert (character), at least for now. It's an amusing anecdote which has recieved some national attention in Canada. It might warrant an article if the mayor does more than just declare March 20th Stephen Colbert Day and actually does something with the day (a parade, civil presentation to Stephen, etc) but for now it's not notable enough for it's own article. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Luna Santin, for the same reasons. Love the show, not sure this is notable yet. —bbatsell ¿? 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Not-notable in its own right outside the context of his show. Mention this (briefly!) on Colbert Report and delete this all together. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete First, it hasnt happened yet Second, it is essentially a publicity stunt for the show and the team/ DGG 23:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article warrants no more or less merit than articles such as, say, International Waffle Day or Heroes' Day and it contains better sources and better written content. Embersofsatin 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. We're still talking about a single-city "holiday" with zero history of observance. A more accurate comparison might be to Miami's "Nintendo Fun Day", which was made a legal holiday in 1991, yet does not have or need an article of its own. Like Nintendo Fun Day, Stephen Colbert Day has no real impact: No one celebrates Stephen Colbert Day. No one gets off work on Stephen Colbert Day. There are no traditions attached to it, and even in Oshawa, it's fair to assume most people haven't heard of it. A holiday that exists only on paper is not a holiday at all. -- Bailey^(talk) 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Google search reveals that International Waffle Day, silly as it might sound, might actually be recognized by UNESCO as a national holiday (this comes from a blog, however, so its not worth citing). Citing other "odd" or trivial-sounding days in defense of "Steve Colbert Day" does not establish notability for the article being voted on here. If Waffle Day is a true Swedish national day, then of course it deserves to stay. If it's a bit of nonsense, then in time it will be voted on, too. Shawn in Montreal 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheeeeesh, this is trivial. The Colbertcrufters have been busy... JChap2007 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Merge and redirect* Ehhh... my main problem was with the stupid basis of the arguments for deleting it (which tended to be LOL COLBERT R SUX), which thus lead ironically to my OWN bias and voting keep even though I don't actually think it should be kept. So, I'll say merge and redirect, but I stand by what I said earlier - for all of you voting delete, unless you have some sort of ACTUALLY VALID reason for it... please refrain from posting at all. Okay? Aguyuno Posted as 70.49.170.250 (talk • contribs)
- Aguyuno, would you mind logging in and formally striking your original comment? (You can do that by wrapping it in tags <s>like this</s> - either the entire comment or just the bolded part, it doesn't matter). I'd do it for you, but the fact that you posted your new recommendation under an IP instead of logging in sort of complicates things. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete Flibirigit 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jcembree 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm also deleting the mention in the 2007 page. NicolaM 05:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge unless adequate references provided for verification My only problem with this article is that the references are entirely inadequate. The only acceptable source provided is the MSNBC article, which only covers the very bare bones details. The great bulk of the article is currently entirely unreferenced and unsourced. Delete and merge the basic facts into Colbert's main article unless the references receive a major cleanup. Note that I do not have a problem with "potential notability" or "fancruft", so if the reference issue is corrected then I will probably change my recommendation to keep. Dugwiki 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballism. Hasn't happened yet, no indication it will be noteworthy when it does, definitely no indication anyone will remember it in five years, let alone 100. If something notable should happen on that day, the article can be rewritten then. Shimeru 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL only comes into play for future events that aren't verified by published sources. You can, for example, write articles about future planned events, albums, films, and so on provided that there are good, verifiable references to show the information in the article is accurate and not simply editorial speculation. Also, note that notability doesn't "expire". So if an event is notable enough for inclusion now and provides sufficient references for verification, it can be kept for historical purposes on Wikipedia even the public loses interest in the even at a later date. (Otherwise what would be the point of writing historical articles about subjects the general populace doesn't know about?) Dugwiki 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'll reiterate that I think this article as it currently stands doesn't have adequate references. So on those grounds, I still support deletion. Dugwiki 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I don't feel this has been verified by published sources. The hundred-year metric is shorthand for considering notability of current pop-culture events: Will anyone remember them in a hundred years? It does have its flaws, of course, but I find it useful to keep in mind when considering this sort of thing. Could've sworn it used to be mentioned at WP:NOTE, but if so, it seems that's gone away some time in the last few months. Anyway, its main thrust is that a current event that gets some media play is not necessarily notable in the long term. Shimeru 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't expire with time, and far as I know there isn't a "hundred year metric" in policy. Rather, it follows as a means of showing that there is a suitable level of verifiable information and interest at the time the article was written. If Wiki was only intended for articles that people remember after a hundred years, there would be little point in writing historical articles about esoteric subjects that aren't currently widely discussed but that still offer interesting or possibly useful information. Dugwiki 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there isn't. There isn't a notability metric in policy; WP:NOTE is a guideline. It is, however, true that there is consensus that passing media notice does not equate to notability. That's part of the reason Wikinews is separate from Wikipedia. Shimeru 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm afraid the burden of proof of the statement that there is consensus regarding handling media notice for notability purposes is on you. Far as I know no such consensus exists or is discussed in any existing guidelines or policies. But I'm certainly not perfect, so if I missed such a consensus discussion or guideline, feel fere to post a link. Dugwiki 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the main original author, and a resident of Oshawa, I request that this be kept. It gives more detail as to how Stephen Colbert Day came to be. I took the picture of the newpaper to show how important it is for the city of Oshawa. The day will be celebrated annually, therefore, detailed information, specifically a separate article, is desirealbe.

I created the article not as a member of the 'Colbert Nation', but as an Oshawanian. -- DAVEisonfire | ]] 5:09pm, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no evidence that the day will be celebrated at all, let alone annually. It'll be on the books, sure, but that's not the same thing. -- Vary | Talk 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reference I recently added included a quote from the mayor of Oshawa inviting Colbert to visit them for the holiday, and offering to do several things to accomodate him (including declaring a "bear-free" day and other things in line with the humour of the event) --Maelwys 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the mayor issued an official invitation, and I'm sure some members of the community will turn up at whatever event they have and get videotaped for that night's Colbert Report. That doesn't mean that anyone is going to care even a year from now. It's a publicity stunt, not a holiday, and certainly not an even remotely important one. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because a few people really, really care does not make the topic encyclopedic. -- Vary | Talk 00:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Forget the hundred-year metric, try a ten-year or twenty-year metric. Also try a 500-mile or 1000-mile metric. what are the odds of this purported holiday being published in newspapers 500-1000 miles away from Oshawa? --Richard 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The odds are 100%. I read about it in my local paper in Pennsylvania. Dugwiki 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I say, forget the metric system. As I stated above, perhaps too colourfully for my good, I don't even agree that the number of media hits or geographical spread of coverage even matters. Certainly it's proof of the popularity of the show. But I don't believe it does anything to establish the reality of this "Day" independent of the show and its hype, hence my vote to include the Day in the main show article.Shawn in Montreal 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think something that is being missed here is that it isn't important whether or not the actual holiday is "celebrated", or even officially recognized. The question is whether the news story behind the holiday is notably verified. Even if the mayor in the story welches, the article only has to show that the news story about the bet behind the holiday meets notability guidelines. Dugwiki 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the original discussion. Is the event significant enough to have its own article, as opposed to be being mentioned on Stephen Colbert's page. The consensus appears to be NO. Flibirigit 04:39, 3 February 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.