Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad Seven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. – Steel 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad Seven

Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad Seven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is on a few comedic cartoon shorts on The Colbert Report that satirize superhero cartoons. It is hardly notable enough for its own article. dposse 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete As stated on the talk page, the article has many issues. The biggest issue is that there has been absolutely no media coverage about this cartoon. Out of all the articles about the Colbert Report, I have found none that even mention Alpha Squad Seven. In short, this fails WP:N. Gdo01 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on the following arguments:
  1. Based on the Google Test (not a concrete test of notability, but it should be considered), there are 112 results for "Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad Seven."
  2. Given Colbert's extreme notability, and the existing book deal, I'd say that the series has some definite, tangible notability. If George Lucas made a five-minute craptastic cartoon, you'd bet that it would have notability, because it was made by someone extremely notable.
  3. Cleanup: I will admit that the article is in dire need of cleanup, but AFD is not the cleanup department.
  4. Metaphor argument: Don't all of the other cartoons on Comedy Central have articles? Do all of the series played on Adult Swim have articles? Don't even get me started on Pokemon.
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
  1. Check out how many unique G-hits it gets [1]. Looks like only 16 to me, 2 of which are Wikipedia, 4 are lonelygirl15's forum, 3 are blogs, 2 are other forums, and 2 are myspace.
  2. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If there even is going to be a published book, there shouldn't be an article on it until it is published. Then the series will be truly "multimedia."
  3. If the article wants to strive to look like anything, it should try to imitate The Ambiguously Gay Duo, a notable Colbert cartoon.
  4. The cartoons on Comedy Central have articles because they are stand alone shows. This cartoon is part of the Colbert Report and should be on that article until it becomes important enough for its own article.
Gdo01 01:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. And even 100 unique Google hits would suggest non-notability. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit, those are valid points. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of independent, reliable sources. Yet more Colbertcruft. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Slash away the episode synopsizes, take away the theme song, and you're left with enough to Merge into The Colbert Report pretty easily. --UsaSatsui 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep (Notable) and re-direct to the main article re: Stephen Colbert.Lee Nysted 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure how this works, but it's probably worth noting that Oni Press recently began publishing a comic book about this character. For some reason, I can't find the original press release, but here's an appearance at the NY comicon[2] and here's a solicitation for the second issue [3]. Also, regarding Google hits, a search for "Tek Jansen" turns up over 100k [4]. Maybe a Tek Jansen page that incorporated this one as well as the comic would be appropriate? Chunky Rice 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually its only 498 unique g-hits [5]. It is quite a few but not nearly as overwhelming as 100k. Gdo01 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment My apologies. I'm not that familiar with this process/techniques. Chunky Rice 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, that link to the solicitation is dead now, since that site moved from Feb to March solicitations and few people archive them, but the first issue is scheduled to be on shelves in April.Chunky Rice 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Colbert Report, it's just one segment of the show, not notable in itself. Krimpet 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Disavian. Xuanwu 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, though there isn't quite enough "Colbertcruft" to start using that term. - ElbridgeGerry t c block
  • Keep, because this page gives us "detaled" recaps of episodes in the serises. How he gets his information, maybe closed captioning, but half of the people i know do not know how to spell half of those names. Ample Know 07:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Total Colbertcruft, he should not have as many articles as he does. Booshakla 10:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No third-party reliable sources. The cartoons are merely one of many recurring segments on The Colbert Report, which do not all need individual articles. Part of the claim made by the article to establish the subject's notability is incorrect -- Tek Jansen did not start out as a book which was then made into a cartoon for the Colbert Report; No Tek Jansen media of any kind was published before the series was introduced on The Report. There's no reason to treat the cartoon as a distinct series from the Colbert Report, and no obvious way to fill out an entire article on this subject without violating WP:NOT and WP:RS. -- Bailey(talk) 23:47, 3 March 2007 (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.