Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Keith Olbermann's special comments

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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keith Olbermann's special comments‎[edit]

While Countdown with Keith Doberman has notability, none of his “Special Comments: have demonstrated any notability. There are currently 35 “Special Comments” listed in the article. Why any one of these is notable enough for inclusion in the article is not given and appears to be original research to include any of them specifically. If these were to be removed, the remaining information in the article would be no more than in the parent article Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FORK and WP:NOR. CENSEI (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - While no Special Comment may warrant its own article, collectively they certainly warrant a categorization here. Special Comments are the most serious segments of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, one of the highest rated cable news shows. This is no different than something like List of House episodes; list articles are specifically authorized by WP:LIST. This isn't a violation of WP:NOT, as it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't a POV fork, as it's simply a list of special comments. While some of the summarizations appear to be original research, at least some of them come directly from MSNBC, and thus necessarily are not OR. At the very worst, this might be cause to remove unsourced summaries, not delete the entire article. I fail to see any reasonable or compelling argument for deletion, and believe that the information contained herein is exactly why we have lists. Given the nominator's recent politically-motivated edit history, it is hard for me to assume this is a good faith nomination. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing television episodes is different because in any list, like the List of House episodes, every episode is listed, and Olberman’s “special Comment” is not a stand alone episode all unto its own. It would be like listing Johnny Carson monologues or the “lessons learned” in South Park. For this article, only a select 35 out of thousands are listed. No notability for any one of these particular sub segments. Just because some come from the MSNBC site does not mean they are not OR, every Special Comment appears on the MSNBC site. CENSEI (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A better analogy would be an article listing a selection of Worst Person in the World recipient, of which there must be actually thousands. What you're saying is just untrue, unfortunately--there haven't been thousands of special comments. There have been 35. You can tell which ones are "special comments" by the on-screen graphic and introduction as a special comment before it begins (and the flurry of Olbermann rocks-Olberdouche sucks debates on Digg the next day). It's only those 35 commentaries that are being referred to when media writeups mention the "special comments," and only those that have been designated as such that have been compiled into his book of special comments. Purifiedwater (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You might be forgiven for not assuming good faith, Blaxthos, from a user that lists an AfD referring to Keith Doberman. :-) It's as clever as talking about "Bill O'Lielly," and as effective when you're trying to be taken seriously. Purifiedwater (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get it -- you don't like the article. It has NPOV problems which I will try to address, at least in part; it's certainly not a POV fork. But there's absolutely no reason to delete the article, which is a perfectly good list. Why don't you help us clean it up instead? --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Though I'm an Olbermann fan, I'm just not sure about this as a wikipedia article. I'm not a fan of lists in general, but some are relevant in context. Point of accuracy: The statement "For this article, only a select 35 out of thousands are listed" is a questionable statement. Thousands? Not so sure about that. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are only 35 Special Comments. I think User:CENSEI was saying that there are thousands of episodes, and that this article only lists 35 -- but that makes sense, because these episodes, by virtue of having Special Comments in them, are immediately the most notable. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are hundreds of "special comments", only 35 are on the MSNBC website. Without indication of which ones are notable and which ones are not, the entire article is OR. CENSEI (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Do you have a source for that assertion? I cannot find, anywhere, a reference to a Special Comment not listed on the MSNBC website. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And besides, what if there ~~are~~ were hundreds of special comments? That means we need to expand the article, not delete it. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "hundreds" of Special Comments, there are currently thirty five (all of which are listed here). Have we descended into just making things up at this point, CENSI? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't a repository for links to an MSNBC website. We do not need articles about Keith Olbermann's special comments, Rush Limbaugh's most quotable quotes, Jerry Springer's final thoughts, Tim Russert's most wry observations, or anything similar. Nothing against Keith Olbermann himself, but Wikipedia is not a directory, and it's not a house of worship. Pay all the homage you want to in the Keith Olbermann article. Mandsford (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Special Comments" are not arbitrarily selected afterwards like the examples ("most quotable quotes") you give. They're a segment of the show which has been reviewed, as a whole, in independent reliable sources ([1] [2], and I'm pretty sure I've read another one which I can't find now); additionally, the individual "Special Comments" have received attention, sometimes widespread, in reliable sources. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a Democrat, and would probably agree with much of what Keith Olbermann said if I cared to tune in to his TV show... but who couldn't miss the point of this article? The latest addition says "August 18, 2008-- 'Senator, Grow Up!'. Olbermann accuses John McCain and his campaign of politicizing the issues they address, and asserts that they blame the media for their own campaign problems." Planning to update this regularly as the campaign rolls along? The only thing missing from this SOAPBOX is the phrase "It Floats!" Mandsford (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your political affiliation has nothing to do with an AFD. ;-) Regarding the latest addition, please follow the citation. Neither the title nor the summary are at issue here -- they're directly from the source. Again, this is a WP:LIST, not an article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think transparently disclosing your own political affiliation is PERFECTLY relevant in a discussion like this. By doing so, you are pointing out to others that you may have a conflict of interest. It's useful information in evaluating a comment (see above where I disclose that I am an Olbermann fan). I wish many of the members of greater Right Wingnuttia who regularly weigh in on Olbermann without disclosing their disdain for him would so self-disclose. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I have to respectfully disagree. ;-) I think the probative value of disclosure only exists if the existence of the affiliation means that someone cannot be objective, which I always assume isn't the case (though I'm sure it often is). In most cases, I think disclosing political affiliations in politically charged AFD discussions would encourage one to credit/discredit a viewpoint because of the contributor's ideology ("he must have !voted that way because he's Republican/Democrat"). Points should stand prima facie; coloring editors politically detracts from the value of their comments (IMHO). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of lists devoted to television shows, there's no compelling reason given to delete this particular one. Gamaliel (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I should disclose that I was the one who created the article in the first place, after the list of special comments was running too long on the Countdown page. Before creating the new article, this was the rationale I offered on the Countdown talk page: the special comments are generally credited with the show's (and MSNBC's) uptick in ratings; they prompted a slew of newspaper write-ups and media mentions (often cited as proof of Countdown's/MSNBC's leftward turn); they're controversial and many of them spread virally over YouTube, garnering collectively millions of views; and there are at least two instances where excerpts of the comments were read on the floor of Congress.

As for the special comments themselves, they are still relatively "special": they're not regular features -- they only occur about once a month -- and they're a distinct part of the show: they generally have a distinct style ("serious" tone, use of apostrophe, staring into the camera, [over?]dramatic intonation, etc.). Though Olbermann probably has offered hundreds of comments, there have only been 35 special comments that have been designated -- by a verbal introduction ("and now a special comment") and an on-screen graphic (with the words "Special Comment") -- as special comments. It doesn't violate WP:NOR, as the show and MSNBC website is cited for the summaries; it doesn't violate WP:NOT because these aren't just arbitrarily selected comments but a complete list of all the special comments, and WP:FORK doesn't actually seem to be apply. Purifiedwater (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominating editor provides no compelling reason for deletion. Google search reveals several of these Special Comments have received substantial media attention, including frequent attacks from wingnut pundits.Hal Raglan (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am a fan of Keith Olbermann since I first watch his Special Comments on YouTube. Keith's Special Comments are notable since it was his Special Comments that got him to where he is today, not his constant criticism of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. But currently he has 35 Special Comments, what happens theoretically later on he makes 500 Special Comments, will all those special comments be listed in Wikipedia. What about the Special Reports done by the Right-Wingers Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Lou Dobbs, should they have their own articles listing their Special Reports? I don't know if this should be deleted or kept, its actually a hard decision. Lehoiberri (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a legitimate point, but a few comments: Olbermann has been doing these special comments for two years now. At this rate, it'll be just under 4 years until he does his 100th special comment, and over 26 years until his 500th special comment. So, these are fairly rare, not-daily commentaries (unlike, for instance, Bill O'Reilly's "talking points" commentaries). And as you point out, it's these comments that led to his upward tick in ratings. If Glenn Beck had commentaries or reports that directly led to him becoming one of the highest-rated cable TV news hosts, I think they'd be worth listing too. Purifiedwater (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquote and delete. This is a list of quotes and external links, and possibly original research. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - These aren't quotes, and aren't appropriate for WikiQuote. Special Comments are rare, dedicated segments of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, each of which is usually 11-13 minutes in length. The level of assumption of inaccurate facts ongoing at this AFD astounds me. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yeah, this doesn't really make sense. There isn't a single, complete quote in the entire article. It's a list of 35 commentaries delivered across two years, with supplemental and background information about the commentaries. You'd have a better chance of transwikiing List of The Colbert Report episodes, which actually has quotes, to Wikiquote than this article. (Of course, transwikiing the Colbert article would be patently ridiculous.) Purifiedwater (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Comment. Agreed. As individual quotes this makes no sense. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While each special comment itself is probably not notable to warrant their own articles, the media attention (and attacks from the right) they attract are surely enough to establish notability of the whole. This list article is much like an episode list that articles on (fiction) TV shows have. -Aknorals (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Notice first hit here. Subject of major cable news show AND a book. Acceptable spinoff of show and book that can be verified in reviews of the show and book. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 4 September 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.