Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan (fictional)

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. Dakota 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kazakhstan (fictional)

Kazakhstan (fictional) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not needed, superfluous with both Borat and Kazakhstan. humblefool® 18:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; Borat's Kazakhstan is simply a parody of what ignorant Westerners imagine Central Asia might be, and was never meant to be a fully-developed fictional country in its own right. —Psychonaut 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: also, POV problems, as though someone had been insulted by Borat's movie and wanted to use Wikipedia as a soapbox: see WP:NOT. In addition, the country is not fictional (in the same way that Genovia is), but merely a satire. It could be Merged sans POV into an article noted by nom, although without POV and generalizations, I'm not sure what would be left. Gracenotes ^T § 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research from start to finish. While there is potential for a properly verified article on this topic (that stupid film's been all over the press) I don't see the need given the main article on the film itself. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, totally superfluous. This "fictional Kazakhstan" isn't a fictional country (it's just a series of fake stories made up about the real Kazahkstan). Also it has no existence independent of the character Borat and that's where we should cover it. Demiurge 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. The point has been made: it's not a fictional Kazakhstan in itself, it's fictional and satirical information about the real Kazakhstan. This doesn't need its own article. "Boratcruft" seems appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would vote Delete for this without a second thought if it weren't for the existence of the Stephen Colbert (character) article. Can someone explain to me why that is okay and this isn't? Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Going by the discussion on the Colbert character talk page, people seem to think that Colbert's character merits an article as he's the main character on a tv show (rather than say, a collection of recurring gags bound up in a persona). I've no opinion on this, but I guess its safe to say that Kazakhstan (fictional) can't use this argument Bwithh 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That Colbert article would seem to be more the equivalent of the Borat article — it's an article about the fictional character split off from the film and TV show it appears in, complicated slightly by the fact that the fictional character has the same identity as the actor who plays him. The equivalent of the article in this AfD would be creating an article about "Bears (fictional)" debunking the Colbert character's fear of bears and arguing that they're just cuddly nice creatures. Still, it's kind of borderline fancruft. Demiurge 10:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. I suppose the info could be merged into Borat if its not already there, and if its referenced. Bwithh 01:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing worth saving, and nothing not already covered in Borat. Yankee Rajput 03:13, 28 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.