Deletion of Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (2nd nomination)

Comment: well sourced, passed AfD at the time and has maintained notability since. It was arguably a career defining moment for Colbert, and there's enough content to warrant its own article, not just a section elsewhere. The logic of the nominator is also faulty, in that  works both ways - if "X should be kept because Y passed AfD" is invalid, then "X should be deleted because Y failed AfD" is equally invalid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: as |pointy nomination.  Nominating a |featured article?  Outright abuse of the deletion process.  AfD does not exist for you to take random swings at things you don't like.  It's all the more inappropriate to try to delete one of our best articles because you perceive it as standing in the way of deleting other content you dislike
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:FA)

Comment: Here's my analysis of this in no particular order. (1) The fact that this is a featured article is irrelevant to a deletion discussion.  If we made a mistake in the past, and that mistake makes it to FA status, does that mean the mistake shouldn't be corrected?  So this is a FA, but that is irrelevant. (2) The nominator asserts that this article is used in  arguments elsewhere.  This is also irrelevant to this deletion discussion.  If editors cite this article whilst making an erroneous OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument somewhere else, then they should be educated; it is not grounds for deleting this article. (3) Essentially, the nominator's argument for deletion boils down to ,  and #NEWS. In other words, the question is: ''is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article?''. Remember, this question is independent of the number of sources in the article. We already know this uses |reliable sources and is |verifiable.  So the question stands, ''is this an historically significant event deserving of an encyclopedia article?'' I could go either way on this one. For example, a http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=en&q=stephen+colbert+bush Gnews search shows that as of today, March, 2009, people are still discussing and http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Corporate_Media_Attacks_Jon_Stewart_6715.html referring to the event.  This would indicate some degree of historical significance.  On the other hand, I think having a full-blown encyclopedia article on it might be blowing it out of perspective and giving it undue weight in the encyclopedia.  For example, which event is historically more significant: First inauguration of George W. Bush|Bush's inauguration or Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner|Colbert's 16 minute speech?  I would say the inauguration is a more historically significant event, yet look at the disparity in the length and depth of the articles.  In conclusion, this article is sourced, verified, and the subject to some degree notable.  But to satisfy the |neutral point of view ''policy'' that we have, we should not give this |undue weight.  I recommend we trim this down to a couple of paragraphs and give it a section in Criticism of George W. Bush. &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:RECENTISM||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: per arguments above.  Also, I call |snowball
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: A well-written, thoroughly-sourced article that establishes notability using over 70 separate reliable and verifiable sources. I am very disturbed by the collective misinterpretation of ,  and #NEWS as rationalizations for deletion, and only further disturbed by the nominator's removal of contrary opinions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:POKEMON is just a variation on 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The cited policies do not seem to apply; the speech in question seems to have risen above a temporary news item to the point where it was still receiving comment in major media sources six months later, so I don't see how #NEWS is relevant.   is only an essay, and cannot therefore be used by itself as grounds to delete an article (as it quite correctly notes itself). I fail to see how  is relevant in the slightest; this article clearly describes an event that was quite important, a comedy performance that has achieved critical acclaim.  In this regard it is no less discriminate than any other article on entertainment events.  This particular event has quite clearly received much discussion in the press, which is one of the measures we use to determine whether the inclusion of something is indiscriminate or not: describing something that is |notable is not considered indiscriminate; by the rules described at  there's a clear presumption of notability for this event.  Unless there's a good reason to consider those rules wrong in this case (and I don't see one in your deletion argument), I see no reason to delete the article.  Very few after-dinner speeches are notable, but this one seems to make the mark
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RECENTISM||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: The depth and diversity of the coverage seems sufficient to meet  and move beyond the article being a news report. It wouldn't have reached FA status if sourcing had been inadequate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)