Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (2nd nomination)
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
— User:LinguistAtLarge, 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:RECENTISM||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:WEIGHT (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)