Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character) (4th 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 } - Speedy snowball keep - Early close as, apart from the unanimity, the previous three AfDs had the same debate character and continuing this is clearly not going to acheive any other outcome than keep - Peripitus (Talk) 13:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)[edit]

Not notable. Other comedians do not have articles dedicated to the information regarding their stage persona. Why is there not a George Lopez (Character) article regarding the character George Lopez on the television show, or why not a John Oliver (Character) for the Oliver's stage persona while performing on The Daily Show? The simply answer is that the stage persona of a comedian or an actor is not notable enough to have a complete article for the dedication of a stage persona. In accordance Wikipedia's deletion policy, I gave enough time from the previous deletion before starting this deletion discuss.

To those who wish to keep the article, answer the following points

Why is Stephen Colbert's stage persona more significant than other comedians?
Why should a stage persona be developed into an article?
Why is Stephen Colbert's stage persona notable to include in Wikipedia
Regarding Colbert 08, Stephen Colbert's candidacy was legitimate as it was reviewed by the South Carolina Democratic Party to determine whether Colbert should be placed on the ballot, so was is that his stage persona running for president?
Wikipedia Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." If abiding by those standards, independent sources though giving significant coverage to Stephen Colbert, gives it to Stephen Colbert himself, not his character, so there is not significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of Wikipedia that have given coerage to Colbert as a character.
If the above statement is true and that coverage from reliable sources is to Colbert and not his stage persona, does that make this article not notable?

Please address the preceding points to validate a decision to keep the article. Bigvinu (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems that all of the canonical validation points were addressed in the previous 3 AFDs. In answer to the first question, "Mu" - he falls under WP:FICT, therefore his significance in comparison to other comedians is irrelevant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why is there an article both for Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (character), or for Creed Bratton and Creed Bratton (The Office)? Or, for that matter, Sacha Baron Cohen and Borat Sagdiyev? I think the persona that Colbert assumes is far more comparable to these guys - a distinct and separate character with an established history and canon - than to the personas assumed by any of the correspondents on The Daily Show, which are essentially just tailored to the joke. Colbert the character has an established history and personality which has been fleshed out throughout The Colbert Report and I Am America (And So Can You!). In terms of coverage, most journalists are able to distinguish between Colbert and his blowhard persona and discuss the latter as a separate character. I believe that notability applies, per WP:FICT. Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The sources illustrate quite nicely that the character is notable separate from the person who plays him. Judging from the article and the above users' comments, I can see that Colbert the character is distinctly different from Colbert the person, and warrants an entirely separate article. Heck, it's even GA class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he clearly is playing a character--it happens to have the same name as he does, but not the same views etc. At this point I am convinced that the Jerry Seinfeld (character) comparison is quite apt. JJL (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Hmm... Does anyone feel that it's at least somewhat odd that this article has already been nominated for deletion three times beforehand and has still survived? If it's still here after such a tenuous history, then I think it'd be best to abide by what has already been established. First of all, Colbert's fictional persona is clearly not the only significant case worthy of mention around here (as the above users mentioned, perhaps the most appropriate example is the Jerry Seinfeld (character) page). Secondly, Colbert's short-lived run for President last year was clearly just a joke, given that he remained in-character throughout interviews during said campaign (see the now well-known Meet the Press interview, availabe on YouTube). And finally, I've read plenty of reliable news sources that have commented about both Stephen Colbert the actor and Stephen Colbert the character, including those concerning his "truthiness" crusade, his WristStrong campaign, his feuds with well-known figures, and his run for President. It should be noted that Colbert remained in-character during such appearances, like those on Good Morning America and Larry King Live — just to name a few. Furthermore, Colbert's fictional persona is certainly more developed and fleshed out than those of his Daily Show colleagues, and the views of his stage persona are actually quite different from his real life potrayer. All that said, I think it's pretty clear why the Stephen Colbert character deserves an individual article. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT. The last AFD was brought up by the same nominator, which ended in a snowball keep. I seriously doubt this will be any different. SashaNein (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also listed as a Good Article, and rightfully so. Even though the nom has a long rationale, it's quite weak and full of irrelevant and inappropriate comparisons, as pointed out by others. SashaNein (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as his character is clearly notable judging by the coverage by reliable and independent sources. The reason such does not accrue strictly to Colbert the person is the depth and breadth of that coverage, which requires more than just a sentence or paragraph as in analogous examples of comedians playing "themselves". --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Well-known and notable character, per exhaustive sourcing in the article; the rest of the nomination has no apparent basis in WP policy. Townlake (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shoemoney2night. I wonder if we should have an article on George Lopez's character? Maxa megalon 2000 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is snowing Protonk (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The character is significantly different from the man who plays him that a seperate article is warranted. Umbralcorax (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (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.