1523:
commentaries. I will begin this construction in
Decemeber, since I am currently dealing with school. The seasons afterward, some of the articles, are provided with fact tags that need references when the DVDs come out in the near future. Season 10 and 11 are currently under construction for such reason. Also, if you look at the original Star Trek episode articles, they provide a WHOLE bunch of information that gives a lot of insight of that episode, none of which are original research and provide resources for their inquiry. Also, the summaries on these South Park articles are not mostly short, but that is because the information comes from a primary source such as the DVD commentary and content of the episode. The reason why these are not shortened for the episodes coming out now and the recent past as of 2006, is because the information comes from a primary source: the videos that are posted on SouthParkStudios.com The references that are on these articles come from that primary source, and those that cannot be proven until later are marked with Fact Tags. And like what SineBot said, it does not serve the article justice to simply have a few sentences of it. While summarizing an episode, you need to provide the intro, conflict, rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion. What you suggessted does not do any of it and it goes against the status quo of episode articles on Knowledge (XXG). Also, this is not a "fan site" as you claimed. The information comes from very direct refernces and proves the claims made to be true. What you suggest does not do that in any way and does not seem right by any means. Secondly, artilces such as Trapped in the Closest has the same plot length as most of the articles of South Park episodes, but provides more reception and more information because it had such a greater impact than other episodes. That is ok. That does not mean you exclude other episodes from being able to show what it is about and you must cleary define it, instead of having a few sentences. And no we are not getting any closer because you cannot realize the REALITY of Knowledge (XXG) and what it stands for. Finally, you are completely misunderstanding the issue here. I am not. I know what should happen here, and I know how to handle this right. You apparently do not. --
1304:
have noticed on this page that one person suggested that ALL the episodes should be removed from wikipedia and only keep the main South Park article. But what if someday, someone very new to South Park comes along, reads the main South Park article, and says "hm, i wonder what the episodes of this show is about so i can get an idea of what is satired in South Park." If we remove those articles, that person would be very disappointed because he was unable to read sourced information about the episodes of South Park. He will then look at an unsourced and untrue website about the episode that wont provide the information correctly, and he would be very skeptical of it. One of the reasons why i got into South Park is because of wikipedia. Denying that chance for someone else is selfish. I think
Knowledge (XXG) needs to be there so people can get the right information, and South Park articles do just that. We already have 12 full seasons of the show in seperate articles. Why not just finish it out till the show ends in 2011? If people think that the article is irrelevent, which its not, simply improve the article so that it is more formal, provide sources for the information, discuss the content before it is added so that people reach a consensus, then lock the article. end of story. --
1610:
the motivations, but you will know at least the resolution or deliberate non-resolution of the particular incident. Look at the descriptions--this is almost always the case. In most good books, if you skip a chapter, you usually miss something necessary to understand the action and as things go on, you get more and more confused. Episodes are usually written with enough hooks backwards to explain the continuity. They more resemble & I think derive from the structure of comic books, which is why there is such an easy translation between those media. (There are of course other possibilities--the structure of those 19th century novels published as weekly chapters usually do not stand alone--they are not true episodes. ) The traditional form they most closely resemble is connected short stories. My favorite example is
Wodehouse, with stories using the same repeated characters. Thats why we almost never have articles on individual chapters of novels--there are very few where it would make the least sense, even if a particular chapter is famous for its particular artistry or complexity of development.
1562:. It is commonly accepted on Knowledge (XXG) for several notable television series to have individual articles for each episode. Knowledge (XXG) is not a traditional encyclopedia; it's not intended to be, and that's why there are articles on so many more things than in an encyclopedia like Britannica or World Book. The fact that some episode summaries are copied-and-pasted from a television website is disgraceful, perhaps, but there's nothing keeping you from rewriting the summary yourself, and that's no reason to nominate an article for deletion. The bottom line is that this is just your personal crusade against episode articles, and nominating an individual article for deletion is not going to automatically overturn some precedent. If you really want to mess with the status quo, there would have to be a discussion on changing Knowledge (XXG) policy -- because as it is now, there's nothing wrong with having articles for individual "South Park" episodes.
1287:
systematic improvements to the episode articles in general, I feel it is time to withdraw the nomination. I am happy to see that the article has been slightly improved, though it still includes an unreferenced trivia section at the time I am writing this. As DGG mentioned above, there should be a middle way between well-referenced articles that span beyond plot summary and season articles that make an overview. Somehow, if you compare a tv show to a book, episodes are like chapters. The show or the book can notable by itself, but that does not necessarily hold for chapters. Anyway, I think it is more appropriate to continue somewhere else. With this I would like to conclude this debate and ask an uninvolved admin to close the nomination (keep, obviously). Thanks again. --
893:
you don't think
Knowledge (XXG) should give television episodes their own pages, then there should be a general talk page to discuss making broad sweeping changes to accepted Knowledge (XXG) policy. Removing a single page by brute-forcing an adf would make Knowledge (XXG) look dreadfully inconsistent and unpredictable. Users who regularly visit Knowledge (XXG) for information on pop culture such as films and television episodes would suddenly be inconvenienced and denied pertinent information because someone had a hissy fit over the existence of an article they didn't happen to like. If any of the other pages stay, then this page stays. For the sake of consistency and common sense: STRONG KEEP.
1078:- Articles like these make Knowledge (XXG) what it is. This latest article on this week's episode of South Park is informative and consistent with the over 150 previous articles like it about past South Park episodes. My jaw dropped when I came in this week to get the info on the latest episode and saw the deletion message. If someone doesn't want these articles then they've got some serious issues with core Knowledge (XXG) ideologies -- not just this article. We'd have to go and delete every South Park episode entry, every Star Trek entry, all TV episodes entries. How about we just be happy that people are willing spare their
1263:
Hell, we might as well delete articles on current dictators to keep the dictators happy. Allow the
Chinese government to censor Knowledge (XXG) to keep the leaders happy. If we want Knowledge (XXG) to remain a good source of information, then we cannot delete important stuff. Stuff about episodes. There is stuff to delete, like Wendy's bio on the students thing after expanding her main article, but not articles about major stuff. Sorry I ranted a bit, but that's what I feel. It's like censoring random things: it's unnecessary, unhealthy and completely stupid. nintendomaster3, not user (yet)
1429:
episode, there is no way of knowing what is satired in the show and the main South Park article does not hold the water for the entire series, and neither will 15 season articles. ALL 180+ episodes need to have their own specific article. Also, if information is placed on wikipedia, like a plot summary without references as you suggessted, would not be verifiable and follow
Knowledge (XXG) Standards. By providing a seperate article for each episode would you be able to verify the claims that are brought forth for each episode. --
294:
feelings and look at this article for what it is. Though I hold the opinion that
Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be TV.Com, I know trying to delete one article is stupid. I cannot change Knowledge (XXG) Policy, and no matter how much I dislike it, as a wikipedian I must clear my conscience and change my vote from delete to keep. Knowledge (XXG) Policy has kept Knowledge (XXG) as the largest online encyclopedia and whether I dislike/like it, I will always uphold it and cannot reasonably keep my vote as delete.
1452:
external reference for that, like a magazine review saying "this episode of South Park satirized this and that show". I don't see what you mean with last two sentences here, all should of course be sourced and therefore everything should be easy to check. I remember from one debate that too detailed plot summaries are close to copyright violations but I can't direct you to that debate so I will not go further on this ground. Anyway, the plot of this episode can easily be summarized in something like
1342:. I could have tagged it because of exactly the same reason - no references and nothing but a detailed plot summary. Anyway, I was not proposing a complete removal of the articles, I just find that a short summary of each episode at the season article would suffice. Like 5 sentences, most episodes could be covered with that. For those that need more, separate articles, sure. So all the relevant info is accesible for those interested and Knowledge (XXG) does not turn in a fanpage. --
486:. In any case, some of the people here seem to be missing the point of the nomination. I don't oppose this specific article (which is still bad and IMO should be merged to the season article), I am just demonstrating that several episodes do not pass criteria for separate articles. There were some attempts to get a consensus on this but as far as I know the summarization has been done for a couple of series only. Sometimes, this was pretty radical, for example, see
761:
create a sub-section of wikipedia that's dedicated to hosting this type and other trivia information and in the process of moving the content also create links from the original content, not to some 3rd party site (driving revenue and value away from wikipedia). I think it's reasonable to assume the person who proposed this has a financial motive having noticed people prefer to go to wikipedia for same information that certain commercially natured sites offer.
442:. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." --
935:
Knowledge (XXG), not IMDb.com" and try to delete every film article. It doesn't logically follow. The nominator has suggested a "merge" so I don't even know why we're here. Please only nominate articles for deletion if you think they should be deleted. AFD is not for discussing merges. So if you want to merge the article and not delete it, taking it to AFD is a waste of volunteer's valuable time. In response to
349:
discovers that her kryptonite-enhanced beauty causes harm to anyone she kisses." A proper summary describes what happens, which is probably the point to the episode. "and Chloe attempts to set the school on fire." does she succeed or not, and how does the episode close? All this is program guide material, not actual description. But in contrast,
1204:. You're trying to tear the building down while it's still being built. All articles have to start off somewhere, and just because it needs improvement does not mean it needs to be immediately deleted. We have plenty of articles lacking in references, more information, and the like, but that does not necessarily mean it merits deleting. —
151:. However, not every single episode of every single show needs a separate article on Knowledge (XXG), that's what another wiki is for. Probably you see that I don't focus on the nominated article only but I would like to have some feedback regarding such articles in general. This one is just an example. Thank you for your comments.
1034:
example. Suppose someone made article about assasination of Obama and you would speedily delete it and then few months later Obama was assasinated. I think the police would be very interested in why was the article detailing the assasination plan deleted as obviously it was notable, just not when the article was created.
1361:
J miester25, exactly! I feel bad about the link to Memory-Alpha in the Star Trek episode articles for just that reason. It may be a pretty good fan wiki, but it's not wikipedia and as such information in it goes from the cited to fancruft. SP is a popular series, why not offer viewers the opportunity
967:
says "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every
Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews
579:
So by deleting this article, you want to set a precedent so every article covering 12 series of South Park gets deleted? Hell, why stop there? Lets start deleting episode articles about Star Trek/X-Files/The
Simpsons, et al. If it's the manner in which the article is written, why not ask for it to
343:
appears to be copy paste from a tv guide, as it gives not episode summaries, but teasers; any summary bending with .... is unencyclopedic. A episode summary that says something like "The
Atlantis expedition is put on trial" but doesn't give anywhere the result of the trial is unencyclopedic. When NOT
330:
I am someone who had read this article and I strongly disagree about his/her/its reason for the episodes to be deleted. The episodes should be summarized if someone does not have the chance to watch the episode. I also believe that Bridon's dad should have his own page. That is why i don't think this
1481:
Just because something can be summarized in a few sentences doesn't mean that's the correct way to do it. If you can provide all the information on a subject, why would you go with the bare minimum? Knowledge (XXG) is about giving information about everything to everyone, why would you want to limit
1262:
got her own article, as she is an important character- she is Stan's girlfriend. If you want this deleted, just delete all the articles on South Park. Then delete important stuff, we might as well delete the articles opposing Robert Mugabe's regime- and Robert Mugabe is the most evil black man ever.
1010:
My interpretation of the GFDFact is that gamefaqs andL license is that text from Knowledge (XXG) cannot be moved to Wikia, like Captain would like to, only copied, because the "original document must be made available" and obviously if you delete the users contribution made here then the original is
892:
It has been the accepted standard on Knowledge (XXG) to have pages for episodes in series, be it Simpsons, Seinfeld, South Park, whatever. It is shameless that a user would attempt to brute-force his own opinion against the accepted consensus by attacking a single page and causing all this chaos. If
598:
This was not ment as a precedent nomination. I am just trying to point out how the standards should be raised. Check the last season of Lost, every article has much more than a plot summary and trivia. I am not saying every article needs to be deleted, only the bad ones. This is an encyclopedia, not
353:
is a very long overdetailed description of each turn in the plot; the corresponding article in MemoryAlpha describes the plot much more clearly (though in similar detail) but also add much more encyclopedic information about the production and other externals. There should be a middle ground, except
1303:
Ok before you end this, think about this: Part of the reason why Knowledge (XXG) exist is to provide more insight about topics that expands as an encyclopedia that gives information about every aspect of something. Deleting the article being discussed is going against the Status quo of wikipedia. i
760:
Knowledge (XXG) is *wikipedia* and trying to imitate every other encyclopedia in the areas they lack compared to Knowledge (XXG) is just doing everyone a disservice. If you want to read traditional encyclopedia, please by all means log off and go buy one. The only sensible alternative to Keep is to
697:
Besides which, this article seems to have been chosen as an example for the nominator's idea of how articles should appear in general, not on the merits of how it might turn out, which seems sort of wrong to me. At the very least, the assertion that "Take any of ther article of the season, they are
396:
Why is it that people have such a hard time comprehending Notability? Notability is not ARTICLE notability, notability is SUBJECT notability. It doesn't matter HOW GOOD the articles on Lost are, the subject they cover (specific articles) is PRECISELY AS NOTABLE AS A SOUTH PARK EPISODE, and actually
293:
I would like to formally apologize for my initial vote of the matter. I was stupid and ignorant. I tried to use this vote to reflect my personal sentiment regarding Knowledge (XXG) Television articles. Disregarding Knowledge (XXG) Policy is not basis for a deletion, and I can now set aside personal
1609:
Just a final comment. episodes are usually not like chapters! Chapters can not stand alone, in any sense whatsoever; they're basically pauses. Episodes in contrast are written to have some degree of internal closure, to be viewable by themselves--you won't know the background, you won't appreciate
1457:
Ok, could be done better but I believe this is perfectly enough for a summary. And again, some episodes require more place because they generated controversy or won awards or were significant in some other way. The rest were just episodes. There is no need to have an article for every episode just
376:
My thoughts exactly. What you suggest was done at the Stargate SG-1 series - reasonable plot summaries at the episode list, of those articles that are about specific episodes, two are GA and one FA, the seasons articles are being worked on. An approach that should be applied courageously for other
146:
consists solely of the plot summary and some trivial information. There are no references, no notability established and no reason why this episode should have an own article. Recently, several shows have had the episode articles summarized in the season articles and only the most prominent single
1537:
You may want to ease your tone a little. The interpretations of what should be written in the Knowledge (XXG) articles are different and there are many people who agree with you and many who don't. In any case, since you say that you are willing to improve the articles, I am happy to hear that. I
344:
says we are Not a program guide this is what it is properly referring to--we tell what the episode is about, and summarize in a paragraph or so what takes place ini it--not give a tag line to encourage people to watch it. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not publicity. The
1451:
Slight misunderstanding here, I believe. The problem with references to pop culture as I see in most of the articles is that they are mostly original research. Chech the talkpage of the article in question, there is a debate whether a specific detail is a reference to some show or not. One needs
1428:
Answering Tone. Only having a season article does not provide enough insight for each specific episode. Not only does the plot need to be inlcuded, but also the references to pop culture that the specific episode makes. If there is not a seperate article that shows these attributes of a specific
1399:
Tone's thought that only the 'well written' articles, or the ones that do more than 'summarize the plot' can be kept, but extras can be cut. Unfortunately, a lot of the better articles became that way through the process of Knowledge (XXG)'s revisions. Ergo, they are what they are because they
1033:
I would add that I've seen many articles deleted a while before they became "notable" and then people being unable to add it back. Therefore I propose the Notability policy to be changed so that article must be atleast one year old before it can be suggested for deletion based on notability. For
725:
South Park being a culturally significant series, popular internationally, even single episodes are notable enough to have their own articles. You want to include only really important subjects, such as countries and human organs, there are literally a million less relevant articles in Knowledge
1583:
I disagree with many policies on Knowledge (XXG). But I don't act on my opinions like this. I'll say I don't like them. But I won't go around act in blatant defiance of them while they still stand. I know the rules. They are there for a reason. They keep things stable. A personal vendetta is no
1454:
Guys find out that they know nothing of the new fad, that's causing everyone to sing in a way that resembles High School musical. The most prominent singer is a new guy called Brydon. Stan tries to convince Brydon to play basketball instead but this proves to be hard because of Brydon's singing
348:
has longer entries, but the same problem: "WLex does something unexpected with the unproven antidote." An encyclopedic description prepared from an actual source for the material will say what the expected something is, not leave it as a hook to the potential viewer. " Things go awry when she
934:
richer, go ahead and delete the article. But Knowledge (XXG) is the 💕 that anyone can edit. Saying "This is Knowledge (XXG), not TV.com" is irrelevant. This website is obviously en.wikipedia.org, not tv.com — but that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. You might as well say "This is
768:
People all over the world see these episodes. Are articles about rare disease that only might occur in US near some old chemical spill area or obscure science and math subjects notable by definition 2Â ? I don't think so, yet no one is arguing for their deletion. Clearly the case here is that
693:
I agree with the notion that hard drive space is cheap, what do we gain from merging into a season summary? Nothing it seems. What do we lose? The extra detail and perhaps the encouragement to go ahead and add to the article. Seeing everything squeezed like this might be off putting to newer
1286:
Thank you all for your feedback. I am happy that the responses have been civil though the nomination itself was pretty provocative. I think I have gathered enough opinions now. Since the nomination is losing its point because most of the people is just voting for keep and not suggesting any
603:. Episodes that have notability asserted (won awards, gained media attention etc.) have separate articles, the others haev the plot summarized and there is a link to wikia where all the details are more than welcome. What I am trying to show is that this is a better encyclopedic approach. --
1538:
think I have already presented all my arguments in the discussion so I will now retire from the debate. Maybe some Knowledge (XXG) guidelines need reshuffling but I will not engage in any debate there for some time, maybe later. As I have stated before, this nomination can now be closed. --
1522:
did most of the work on with other users, and provided sources for his inquiry. Though some of them, like Free Hat, that you mentioned, that SHOULD have cultural references to movies such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones, will be provided with sources that come from SouthParkStudios and DVD
233:- Most articles do indeed develop, especially from a popular series like South Park. If this is to go, I would like to see the nominator go through and similarly tag every other non-notable (in their opinion) episode of South Park and every other TV series on Knowledge (XXG).
1144:, Ditto to TheTruthiness on the singling out. This is obviously just some who just don't like South Park who want it removed, for example person who said remove all episodes and character pages, are you kidding? Keep the page and stop the growing Knowledge (XXG) bias. --
726:(XXG) one should get rid of first. Granted, this might not be the most significant South Park episode in terms of controversial plot elements etc., but it would be near-impossible to agree on which episodes deserve an article of their own, should this one be deleted.--
501:
You are absolutely correct in that it's not a free pass for inclusion, and that articles must abide by the content policies. However, nobody has pointed out a single policy that this article violates, so my original statement stands. Further, note that your link,
1455:
obsessed father. At the end, Brydon chooses to play basketball. After resisting to follow the fad the guys decide to go along singing but then they realize that everyone is interested in basketball. The reason is that they liked Brydon and not the fad itself.
1319:
I might also add that this deletion proposal was premature. The episode had barely been out for two days. Expecting the article to be perfect after only two days is unrealistic. I suggest that you wait a lot longer before proposing to delete something like
842:
usually works better - either the articles get improved (great!) or not (at which point there is proof that they aren't getting improved and should be merged/redirected/deleted). Note to SP wikiproject: maybe it's time to reconsider your approach.
397:
much less notable in my opinion, as South Park actually covers topics of general interest. Even if our Einstein article was just a stub, and our Frank Tirnady article was 2,000,000 words long, Enstein would still be MORE NOTABLE than Tirnady.
1082:
to expand Knowledge (XXG) to cover all directions of human endeavour whimsical, scientific, cultural, economic and otherwise. If TV episode articles are not your cup of tea then don't view the articles. The articles don't get in your way.
968:
and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." It's sad that the people making these deletion nominations don't realize they're doing more for
1373:
I added the reference to the article, with is the episode that is found on SouthParkStudios.com that an adminsitrator in a previous arctile talk page stated that it would verify the claims good enough. I will also remove the Sources Tag.
769:
commercial sites have taken interest in Knowledge (XXG) competing with them. Fact is that gamefaqs and so on lack some of the interesting information you have on Knowledge (XXG) and they could go down any moment for various reasons.
418:
I don't understand why this particular episode is less worthy of its own page than any other preceding it. There has been a standard set in terms of giving South Park episodes their own page, and I don't see a reason to change that.
743:. Keep only the main South Park article, the one for the movie, and the list of episodes. Kill all the episode and character articles; none of them are notable in the slightest way, and the South Park Wiki exists for the fans. --
1228:, I just saw this episode and I came here to see what little bits of information and references I missed. When I saw it was up for deletion, I was kind of irked. Knowledge (XXG) has always been about information about
910:, it's an episode of a notable TV show. The episode itself is the primary source for the plot summary. And notability cannot be "established" — it's a subjective opinion. Go write an article on the topic of
943:
Wikiproject Video Games thinks, or does (and as if they all share one mind). If a TV show already has season pages, great. But that doesn't mean we should delete every episode page on Knowledge (XXG).
555:
212:- Most episodes deserve articles. Since this is basically a brand new one, give it some time. Articles can and will develop. If, after a month, the article is untouched, bring it to AfD again.
1410:
Of my own personal thoughts, South Park is one of the longest running animated series. On this note, each article on it is suitable, versus brief series with less lingering cultural impact. --
1258:. This episode is only 5 days old. The article isn't that much older. You cannot delete it. If you want this deleted, you might as well wipe it off Knowledge (XXG) itself. I was pleased when
358:
on these articles, instead of arguing about removing them, we would get somewhere. Either good reasonable size episode articles, or good adequate season summaries: either would do.
135:
529:
955:
says. It says topics should be notable. This episode is notable. Notability guidelines list evidence that the community considers evidence of notability. But that is not the
177:
Take any of ther article of the season, they are solely plot summaries. Some have references, some not. I am saying some episodes simply do not deserve separate articles. --
644:
is more illustrative. Most of the articles will never get over the plot summary since there's not much to add as they are just episodes. My proposal is not delete, but
671:? On a separate note, if your suggestion is to merge and not delete, you should consider removing the article for deletion box and replacing it with { {merge} }. --
580:
be re-written? Just because one Wikipedian deems a page irrelevant, doesn't mean others feel the same way about it. This is one very strange deletion request. --
102:
97:
1407:, judging which ones were monumental (besides the first and last) is strictly up to opinion. On that note, if some are acceptable, all should be acceptable.
659:
The point still remains that any action you wish to be taken with this article should be adhered to with similar articles (for example, articles included in
106:
1184:
863:
to the already polluted pond and voluntarily cut back heavily on their in-universe and plot cruft (SG is still in the process, SV has already succeeded). –
506:
references the same essay from which I pulled the quote regarding how there is no reason we shouldn't have an article about every episode of a TV show. --
89:
1163:, I don't get it. Like Mothball666 said, people just want it removed (only who don't like South Park). Its really situation to say "What the hell?!!"..
1059:
Plenty, plenty of articles are less notable/have less claims for notability. Most South Park episodes are already notable by virtue of their existence.
1220:. Never get rid of episode articles. Where else would we get episode info? Nowhere! So keep this article. Whoever nominated this made a large mistake.
765:
Notability: 1.(dated) Capable of being noted; noticeable; plain; evident. 2. Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished.
702:
and the controversy caused by the sight of George Lucas raping Indiana Jones, that seems outside a mere plot summary. Or the production segment of
1041:
1018:
776:
381:
has a great approach, most of the articles are referenced and much more than plot summaries, several FAs and in depth season articles. --
1270:
1060:
792:
623:
148:
1125:, why the hell is this episode being singled out? Someone obviously has a bias as there's no continuty between this and other eps. --
17:
703:
851:
are doling out GAs and FAs at high speed and thus can reasonably assert that they are improving the other articles as well, and
808:
to LoE / new season article until this episode has (at least) been nominated for an award or has otherwise caused controversy (
667:
as I referred to). Why stop at television shows? Does Knowledge (XXG) really need a single article for every element in the
1567:
600:
93:
622:
of which every episode has an article. Bear in mind that this article is still in it's infancy. I'm sure articles such as
53:
1621:
1593:
1571:
1544:
1532:
1492:
1464:
1438:
1419:
1383:
1348:
1329:
1313:
1293:
1278:
1242:
1210:
1196:
1172:
1153:
1134:
1098:
1068:
1049:
1026:
1003:
989:
902:
884:
867:
800:
752:
735:
715:
680:
660:
654:
635:
615:
609:
589:
570:
544:
515:
496:
477:
451:
428:
406:
387:
369:
324:
303:
281:
267:
242:
225:
220:
198:
183:
172:
157:
71:
272:
1640:
487:
36:
1395:
I disagree with the reason for opening this article for deletion, as well as a few of Tone's supplementary arguments.
664:
619:
312:
1255:
748:
731:
706:. It doesn't help the nomination that the nominator doesn't seem to have read the other articles from this season.
1563:
1168:
85:
77:
1518:. The cultural references that are provided from season 1 to 9 on this website is from DVD commentary that user
1639:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1045:
1022:
780:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1187:
to prove this. I've also added a section on the episode's reception, so it's not just a plot summary anymore.
1403:
Tone weakens his argument by saying 'some' articles are acceptable. Considering that all episodes are of the
1274:
1130:
1088:
1488:
1266:
1238:
1149:
1094:
1037:
1014:
952:
809:
772:
727:
1205:
1183:. All South Park episodes gain enough media attention to classify as notable. There are numerous relevant
1064:
796:
711:
641:
350:
320:
258:
238:
1528:
1434:
1379:
1309:
1084:
926:. There is no reason why episodes of notable shows cannot have articles on Knowledge (XXG). No, this is
744:
668:
69:
1519:
923:
852:
844:
707:
234:
1145:
1362:
to read about the series knowing that we've sifted through the rubbish to give them verifiable facts?
1164:
999:
676:
631:
585:
511:
447:
168:
1589:
1483:
1415:
1325:
1233:
985:
898:
880:
836:
424:
402:
860:
1126:
640:
I should have probably chosen an older article to demonstrate the point. For that purpose, maybe
471:
164:
914:
and you might learn something. There is no policy against "trivia" — that's because just about
439:
249:
This is sometimes done. The recent series that had had the episodes summarized are for example
1259:
699:
566:
540:
316:
299:
218:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1514:
First of all, cultural references are not original research. We established this with admin.
959:
evidence of notability. Saying "This is an encyclopedia, not a tv guide" is irrelevant. Like
848:
813:
1524:
1515:
1430:
1375:
1305:
378:
57:
821:
817:
503:
457:
995:
960:
672:
627:
581:
507:
443:
829:
825:
49:
918:
on Knowledge (XXG) is trivia. You cannot know what an orange tastes like by reading the
48:. Hate to break into your inciteful discussion, but it would be better placed in either
1585:
1411:
1321:
1115:
1111:
981:
977:
919:
894:
876:
420:
398:
626:, which you referred to didn't appear overnight and are the result of ongoing work. --
483:
1617:
1192:
864:
465:
365:
1254:
You're just like the quarter of Americans that thinks there was a conspiracy behind
969:
936:
931:
856:
562:
536:
340:
295:
213:
147:
episodes kept their articles. A good example of a well-written episode article is
123:
973:
311:
Until the article has enough legs to stand on its own, it should be merged into
1458:
because there are articles for some of them. Are we coming any closer here? --
911:
832:. Note to nominator: Tagging plot-only articles of notable/popular shows with
339:
The examples listed above are articles which disgrace wp in various ways. The
254:
143:
1540:
1460:
1344:
1289:
948:
650:
605:
492:
383:
277:
263:
194:
179:
153:
345:
1612:
1339:
1188:
360:
250:
614:
Going by that notion, I'm sure there are plenty of unworthy articles in
482:
Also, there is one of the core criteria in Knowledge (XXG) and this is
354:
I very rarely see it. Perhaps if people who know the series would
1232:. Start limiting it here, what else would we have to get rid of?
1633:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
964:
556:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
994:
After that last entry, when do we remove the AfD box? --
1338:
Ok, I feel I have to add something here. Please, check
922:
article — it is just a description. Knowledge (XXG) is
130:
119:
115:
111:
599:a tv guide. Other wikis are for that. Check a FL,
859:with his Smallville articles have stopped adding
812:), or has been improved to support a spinout per
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1643:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1400:weren't deleted at this early stage of the item.
930:"what another wiki is for." If you want to make
741:Strong Delete of all South Park episode articles
530:list of Television-related deletion discussions
142:This article about the most recent episode of
8:
698:solely plot summaries" is wrong. What about
462:This policy is not a free pass for inclusion
947:article on Knowledge (XXG) is "necessary."
554:: This debate has been included in the
528:: This debate has been included in the
163:It's a brand new article, give it time.
1482:the topics covered? It makes no sense.
980:than the readers of Knowledge (XXG). --
261:. There's a separate wiki for those. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1584:reason to try to delete something.
624:Trapped in the Closet (South Park)
149:Trapped in the Closet (South Park)
24:
783:) 6:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
601:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
460:also says that, in bold, that
1:
1622:22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1594:10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1572:05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1545:08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1533:03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1493:01:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1465:22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1439:21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1420:21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1384:22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1349:17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1330:16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1314:15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1294:10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1279:08:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1243:04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1211:20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1197:19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1173:15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1154:18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1135:08:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1099:02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1069:02:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1050:01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1027:00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1004:23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
990:21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
951:, you do not understand what
903:19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
885:17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
868:17:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
801:17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
753:16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
736:16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
716:15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
681:14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
661:List of The Simpsons episodes
655:14:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
636:14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
616:List of The Simpsons episodes
610:14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
590:13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
571:04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
545:04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
516:22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
497:11:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
478:08:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
452:05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
429:03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
407:20:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
388:00:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
370:00:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
325:23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
304:20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
282:22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
268:22:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
243:22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
226:21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
199:14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
184:20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
173:20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
158:19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
72:21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
488:Knowledge (XXG):Pokémon test
52:or in a talk page. Thanks! (
665:List of Family Guy episodes
620:List of Family Guy episodes
331:article should be deleted.
313:List of South Park episodes
1660:
953:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
188:My suggestion is in fact
86:Elementary School Musical
78:Elementary School Musical
1636:Please do not modify it.
924:not a paper encyclopedia
32:Please do not modify it.
1252:Incredibly Strong Keep
965:Meta:Wiki is not paper
642:The Arsenal of Freedom
440:Meta:Wiki is not paper
351:The Arsenal of Freedom
259:The Arsenal of Freedom
257:. Random check, maybe
1491:comment was added at
1241:comment was added at
1097:comment was added at
669:New Order discography
1564:A Stop at Willoughby
46:Nomination Withdrawn
791:Per common sense.
704:About Last Night...
273:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
875:per common sense.
816:without violating
44:The result was
1269:comment added by
1260:Wendy Testaburger
1207:Mizu onna sango15
1040:comment added by
1017:comment added by
775:comment added by
700:The China Probrem
573:
559:
547:
533:
317:User:2008Olympian
291:Vote Change: Keep
66:
62:
54:non-admin closure
1651:
1638:
1496:
1281:
1246:
1208:
1185:Google News hits
1102:
1052:
1029:
841:
835:
784:
745:Captain Infinity
728:Almost Anonymous
560:
550:
534:
524:
474:
468:
379:Lost (TV series)
377:series as well.
133:
127:
109:
67:
64:
60:
34:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1641:deletion review
1634:
1486:
1301:
1264:
1236:
1206:
1175:Rogerchocodiles
1165:Rogerchocodiles
1092:
1035:
1012:
939:, I don't care
839:
833:
770:
472:
466:
323:
223:
216:
129:
100:
84:
81:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1657:
1655:
1646:
1645:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1601:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1575:
1574:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1423:
1422:
1408:
1401:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1333:
1332:
1300:
1297:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1248:
1247:
1222:
1221:
1214:
1213:
1199:
1177:
1176:
1157:
1156:
1138:
1137:
1119:
1118:
1104:
1103:
1072:
1071:
1042:88.115.125.142
1031:
1030:
1019:88.115.125.142
1007:
1006:
992:
978:Angela Beesley
920:Orange (fruit)
905:
887:
870:
803:
777:88.115.125.142
763:
762:
755:
738:
719:
718:
695:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
593:
592:
574:
548:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
499:
432:
431:
412:
411:
410:
409:
391:
390:
373:
372:
346:Smallville one
328:
327:
319:
306:
287:
286:
285:
284:
275:by the way. --
246:
245:
228:
221:
214:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
140:
139:
80:
75:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1656:
1644:
1642:
1637:
1631:
1630:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1614:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1466:
1463:
1462:
1456:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1405:same duration
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1394:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:86.151.27.174
1268:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:TheTruthiness
1124:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1090:
1086:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
906:
904:
900:
896:
891:
888:
886:
882:
878:
874:
871:
869:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
838:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:WP:NOTABILITY
807:
804:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
786:
785:
782:
778:
774:
766:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
742:
739:
737:
733:
729:
724:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
696:
692:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
653:
652:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
608:
607:
602:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
578:
575:
572:
568:
564:
557:
553:
549:
546:
542:
538:
531:
527:
523:
517:
513:
509:
505:
500:
498:
495:
494:
489:
485:
481:
480:
479:
475:
469:
463:
459:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
433:
430:
426:
422:
417:
414:
413:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
386:
385:
380:
375:
374:
371:
367:
363:
362:
357:
352:
347:
342:
341:Stargate list
338:
334:
333:
332:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
305:
301:
297:
292:
289:
288:
283:
280:
279:
274:
271:
270:
269:
266:
265:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
227:
224:
219:
217:
211:
208:
207:
200:
197:
196:
191:
187:
186:
185:
182:
181:
176:
175:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:
160:
159:
156:
155:
150:
145:
137:
132:
125:
121:
117:
113:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
79:
76:
74:
73:
70:
68:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1635:
1632:
1611:
1600:
1580:
1559:
1539:
1520:Alastairward
1459:
1453:
1404:
1393:Strong Keep.
1392:
1391:
1343:
1302:
1288:
1285:
1251:
1229:
1225:
1217:
1201:
1180:
1160:
1141:
1122:
1107:
1079:
1075:
1061:143.89.188.6
1056:
1032:
970:Gil Penchina
956:
944:
940:
932:Gil Penchina
927:
915:
907:
889:
872:
857:User:Bignole
805:
793:71.64.154.24
788:
767:
764:
757:
740:
722:
708:Alastairward
649:
645:
604:
576:
551:
525:
504:WP:NOT#PAPER
491:
461:
458:WP:NOT#PAPER
435:
415:
382:
359:
355:
336:
329:
308:
290:
276:
262:
235:Alastairward
230:
209:
193:
189:
178:
152:
141:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1581:Strong Keep
1560:Strong keep
1525:J miester25
1516:Nightscream
1487:—Preceding
1431:J miester25
1376:J miester25
1306:J miester25
1265:—Preceding
1237:—Preceding
1226:Strong Keep
1218:Strong Keep
1202:Strong keep
1161:Strong Keep
1146:Mothball666
1142:Strong Keep
1093:—Preceding
1076:Strong keep
1036:—Preceding
1013:—Preceding
974:Jimbo Wales
908:Strong keep
890:Strong keep
873:Strong Keep
853:WP:STARGATE
845:WP:SIMPSONS
818:WP:NOT#PLOT
789:Strong Keep
771:—Preceding
758:Strong Keep
723:Strong Keep
577:Strong Keep
416:Strong Keep
231:Strong keep
1230:everything
1116:poof money
996:Factorylad
961:Masterzora
916:everything
912:notability
837:notability
673:Factorylad
628:Factorylad
582:Factorylad
508:Masterzora
484:Notability
444:Masterzora
255:Smallville
222:(contribs)
144:South Park
1412:SoreThumb
1112:Pixelface
1080:free time
982:Pixelface
895:PyroGamer
877:Jonesy702
861:WP:SEWAGE
563:• Gene93k
537:• Gene93k
421:Stuartfaz
399:PyroGamer
210:Weak Keep
1484:seanfury
1340:Free Hat
1267:unsigned
1234:seanfury
1038:unsigned
1015:unsigned
865:sgeureka
806:Redirect
773:unsigned
694:editors.
467:MuZemike
321:chitchat
251:Stargate
136:View log
1489:undated
1320:this.--
1239:undated
1095:undated
1011:gone.
937:Bigvinu
849:WP:LOST
814:WP:SIZE
438:as per
337:Comment
296:Bigvinu
103:protect
98:history
963:said,
822:WP:WAF
131:delete
107:delete
1110:dido
830:WP:OR
826:WP:RS
646:Merge
309:Merge
215:David
190:Merge
165:ZZT32
134:) – (
124:views
116:watch
112:links
50:WP:VP
16:<
1618:talk
1590:talk
1586:Matt
1568:talk
1541:Tone
1529:talk
1461:Tone
1435:talk
1416:talk
1380:talk
1345:Tone
1326:talk
1322:Matt
1310:talk
1299:WAIT
1290:Tone
1275:talk
1256:9/11
1193:talk
1181:Keep
1169:talk
1150:talk
1131:talk
1123:Keep
1114:. -
1108:Keep
1089:talk
1065:talk
1057:Keep
1046:talk
1023:talk
1000:talk
986:talk
976:and
972:and
957:only
949:Tone
941:what
899:talk
881:talk
855:and
847:and
828:and
797:talk
781:talk
749:talk
732:talk
712:talk
677:talk
663:and
651:Tone
648:. --
632:talk
618:and
606:Tone
586:talk
567:talk
552:Note
541:talk
526:Note
512:talk
493:Tone
490:. --
473:talk
456:Uh,
448:talk
436:Keep
425:talk
403:talk
384:Tone
366:talk
356:work
300:talk
278:Tone
264:Tone
253:and
239:talk
195:Tone
192:. --
180:Tone
169:talk
154:Tone
120:logs
94:talk
90:edit
65:ANDA
61:ARTH
1613:DGG
1189:96T
1091:)
928:not
561:--
558:.
535:--
532:.
361:DGG
315:.--
1620:)
1592:)
1570:)
1531:)
1437:)
1418:)
1382:)
1374:--
1328:)
1312:)
1277:)
1195:)
1171:)
1152:)
1133:)
1085:JA
1067:)
1048:)
1025:)
1002:)
988:)
945:No
901:)
883:)
840:}}
834:{{
824:,
820:,
799:)
751:)
734:)
714:)
679:)
634:)
588:)
569:)
543:)
514:)
476:)
464:.
450:)
427:)
405:)
368:)
302:)
241:)
171:)
122:|
118:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
56:)
1616:(
1588:(
1566:(
1527:(
1497:\
1495:.
1433:(
1414:(
1378:(
1324:(
1308:(
1273:(
1245:.
1191:(
1167:(
1148:(
1129:(
1101:.
1087:(
1063:(
1044:(
1021:(
998:(
984:(
897:(
879:(
795:(
779:(
747:(
730:(
710:(
675:(
630:(
584:(
565:(
539:(
510:(
470:(
446:(
423:(
401:(
364:(
335:'
298:(
237:(
167:(
138:)
128:(
126:)
88:(
63:P
59:D
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.