Deletion of Better Know A District

Comment: Notable enough per TBC and EnsRedShirt, not particularly "crufty"; " 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: neither listcruft/Colbertcruft nor a  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: It probably IS a  violation, but I would say this is a good example of .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:IAR)