Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Know A District

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Know A District

Technically, it's a WP:NEO violation, but more to the point, it's just Colbertcruft, one of a number of articles created to make The Colbert Report seem more popular than it actually is. Google shows almost no examples of the term being used outside of references to Colbert and/or his program. Aaron 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Pare Down and Merge to main article. Too much information! - Richfife 04:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, relatively well known segment on a well known show. The segment has recieved a lot of media attention due to Colbert's continual "manipulation" of the words of well known politicians. For example, Wexlar's comment on prostitutes and cocaine has been mentioned on the Los Angeles Times[1], Geraldo at Large [2], Good Morning America [3], and Fox News [4]. (note the last three links are on youtube, where the news report videos are hosted)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A series of interviews with 434 of the most important prople in the US is definetly notable. (I hate to admit this, but I missed a few interviews, and I came here to find out who it was I missed..)EnsRedShirt 06:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is cruft, doesn't need it's own article or space. Yes, this is one of a long series of articles/entries that try to make this show look more popular and notable than it is. Giant onehead 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's defiantly not as crufty compared to having over 450 articles on every single Pokemon character in existence. Also, how does having more articles make a subject "look more popular and notable than it is"? Using my previous example, there are more Pokemon related articles than there are Buddha or Einstein related articles, but does that make Pokemon any more notable than either Buddha or Einstein?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But the scope/audience/popularity of Pokemon is much larger than this show. Yeah, maybe you can't really do 100 articles with Einstein as the main focus, but those articles on their own will always carry more weight and be more viewed than a pokemon character. Giant onehead 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you just don't like the Colbert Report. While you have the right to that opinion, it doesn't mean you can delete all the articles about the show. - Lex 01:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough per TBC and EnsRedShirt, not particularly "crufty"; "WP:NEO violation" rationale unclear and not a cause for deletion. Please don't just assume that articles are created to make something look more popular than it is, claiming that without concrete evidence isn't serious. Merging it elsewhere might be good, but would probably just clutter articles that are already long. --Gabbec 08:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (but needs serious cleanup). NYT article for reference. Meets verifiability requirements. Agree that it's cruft, but a 90% cruft-free article is possible here with some pruning. Fagstein 09:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It probably IS a WP:NEO violation, but I would say this is a good example of WP:IAR. Notability isn't an issue as at least one of these segments has been aired/reported on by more legitimate news programs, not to mention the notability of the guests themselves. The Colbert Report (at least currently) has a significant pop cultural significance, and this recurring segment involves a large variety of elected officials. I'd say keep now and review relevance again in a year. -Markeer 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am enjoying the new "articles created just to make it seem more popular than it is" meme, though. --NapoliRoma 14:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. High-profile interviews, better than Barbara Walters in many cases. Billy Blythe 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. as above - Deathrocker 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep while list and fancrufty, passes notability threshold and is therefore not really a neologism. Eusebeus 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep It's perhaps the most well-known portion of a notable television show, and is important enough to have 30-some-odd Congressmen appear. I really don't think "created to make The Colbert Report seem more popular than it actually is" is a proper reason for deletion. -- Kicking222 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge with Colbert Report. --Dennisthe2 17:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and it is in dire need of some well-delayed cleanup. The influence that the BKAD segment has on society is definately there. If Pokémon can have its 450 trading guide up on here, then BKAD has a place here as well. (Thankfully, Wikipedia already comes with all those articles on the U.S. Representatives.) - The Lake Effect 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Margana 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's been verified thanks to Fox News's and GMA's inability to interpret satire. It's also a major recurring theme of a show that has already involved some thirty members of Congress, each of whom are independently notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; neither listcruft/Colbertcruft nor a WP:NEO issue. Simply because something is new, or is a coined term, does not make if the type of neologism or protologism that Wikipedia excludes: as a (silly but accurate) thought experiment, imagine that the President of the United States, in a policy speech, announced the creation of a new agency called the Ministry of Truthiness. Believe me, it would justifiably have a Wikipedia article the next day, or more likely, within an hour.) --MCB 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. - Lex 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, MCB's argument by assertion and tortured analogy notwithstanding, this is EXACTLY listcruft: finely detailed information, of limited to no interest to non-fans, concerning a portion of a larger topic. And bring ing up the Pokemon Fanboy Argument doesn't justify Stephen Colbert Fanboy articles. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep another part of civics lesson - our govt is strong enough to handle satire, and is composed of 435-ish districts. - satire1 12:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'd prefer to see it merged with the recurring segments article, but that article is long enough as it stands, so it might be better to keep it seperate. Also, as other users have stated, these are interviews with notable politicians. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 07:40, 4 October 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.