Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kenny's deaths (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. The "keep" and "merge" opinions are mostly just votes. Sandstein (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Kenny's deaths
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced, lacks notability, fancrufty, primarily trivia type content, and does not meet WP:FICTION requirements. Yes, Kenny gets killed regularly, but there is already an article to cover this Kenny's deaths (as well as being covered in the main Kenny McCormick article), making this a redundant and unnecessary list. (relisting of former multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions.   —Collectonian (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject South Park has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This topic is currently being covered here, Kenny's deaths, and Kenny McCormick. I love South Park as much as the next person, but this is fancruft at it's worst. I'm sure the running gag of Kenny's death is notable in popular culture, but this potential notabilty is not established anywhere on Wikipedia, despite having two articles and a section devoted to it. It is stated at WP:FICTION that articles should be kept "if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article". Wikipedia is not here to list jokes; in order to stay it must establish real-world significance and be reliably sourced. That said, it seems a shame to lose all this information, so it might be a good idea to transwiki the article to the South Park Wiki. Kenny's deaths may be a notable aspect of South Park, but here on Wikipedia we should examine how the joke was created and it's influence on pop culture, not simply listing every variation of it. I reccommend that this article be deleted, that Kenny's deaths be redirected to Kenny McCormick, and then the South Park Wikiproject work to find sources examining the topic and include them there. Quality is more important than quantity, and three articles full of in-universe information and original research is not encyclopedic.  Paul    730  00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Paul's comments. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Paul pretty much summed everything up. Tavix (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Kenny's death, as suggested last time, and again as it is a noticeable/controversial aspect of a popular, multi-season show (I recall commercials even touting how "Kenny dies" on South Park) that has been converted into a film and video games (even a pinball game!). Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * None of that notability is established on any of the three articles. It's all in-universe stuff about whether Stan and the others are aware of him dying and stuff.  Even if reliable sources could back up what you say (and I'm sure they could), please explain why all that deserves one or more individual article.  Let's be honest, Kenny doesn't have a whole lot of characterization besides that joke, there's no reason why his deaths can't be covered in his own article alone.    Paul    730  07:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The list and prose article on his deaths are a treasure-trove of well-organized, verifiable information that clearly some effort was put into in making. It is the most notable aspect of a recognizable character and one of the famous running gags of a popular show.  If this stuff does exist on a South Park wiki that can be linked to from the main article, then that's cool, but it would be a shame to lose it and discourage those who contributed to these articles from editing by having it totally removed.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think the list should be transwikied rather than lost completely, since it's reasonably well-presented information that is of interest to South Park fans. However, Wikipedia does not exist for fans; information should have real world context and, while Kenny's deaths are notable in pop culture, we don't need a list of them to prove that point, we need secondary sources discussing them.  We can make the point that he dies a lot without a list - Jason Voorhees is notable for killing people, but that doesn't mean we need a list of all the people he's killed.  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, you describe these articles as a "treasure-trove of well-organized, verifiable information".  Sorry, but I disagree.  The list is unneccessary in-universe detail with no real-world context, the prose article consists entirely of original research and uncited material.  These articles, along with the character article and the episode pages, all repeat themselves endlessly, and none of them establish any notability at all.  As for deleting material discouraging the editors who created it... sorry, but we can't keep stuff that violates policy just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.  Like I said, we can transwiki it and then possibly link to that wiki from the Kenny article.     Paul    730  08:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It really is put together nicely and I would hate for us to turn fans of the show away from Wikipedia. When I began editing, I was only interested in a few specific articles, but over the past year, I have worked to improved many different unique articles that over a year ago I would have never thought I would be improving.  Being dismisses of fans could lead us down a slippery slope as editors who come for good articles like this one could over time help out in other areas, too.  But again, this particular article concerns a central plot element of easily one of the most controversial cartoons of all time, which is in part controvsersial because of such content and there's a real research value to understanding the specifics.  After all, wasn't South Park's violence even addressed in Bowling for Columbine?  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A nice structure doesn't warrant keeping an article on Wikipedia at all. We should not bend the rules to cater to the fans -- there are many other excellent resources for them around the Internet, and Wikipedia's stance on fictional topics is to provide real-world context about them.  If anything, the transwiki of this list followed by an external link to the off-Wikipedia list would reinforce Wikipedia's encyclopedic content.  We should instead educate South Park fans on how they can contribute relevant content to Wikipedia -- it takes more steps than just avidly watching the show and being familiar with pop culture, but it's completely possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hope everyone agrees that Kenny's deaths are a notable subject (if not, you could for example see here). This list would have been perfectly suitable for the Kenny's deaths article, but isn't in that article because that would make the article become too long. Therefore, I don't see why it should be anything wrong with having a separate article for the list. Lists such as this one should be seen as parts of the parent article, and the only question we need to ask in this case is: will Wikipedia's coverage of the subject (the 'kill Kenny' gag on South Park) be better or worse without this list? The answer is, it would become worse. It's much easier and user-friendly writing in an article that Kenny died in almost every episode before 2001 if we also have a list showing that he did. People doing research on South Park (for example on the violence on the show) might use this list as a good resource as well. This list is not indiscriminate (it is limited to official South Park media), it is not a collection of loosely related information (South Park episodes are of course closely related), it can not be replaced by a category (Category:South Park episodes in which Kenny dies? no.), and it is not just a list (it doesn't just list which episodes Kenny dies in, but also how he dies, and relevant notes - there should have been more of those).96T (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kenny's deaths. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kenny's deaths. This is ridiculous listcruft bordering fancruft; how it is necessary to list every instance of a running gag - that is, something repeated over and over - I have no idea. • 97198  talk  10:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since there's been a few votes for Merge into the Kenny's deaths article, I should probably mention that I've just proposed that article to be merged into Kenny McCormick. I don't see any reason for that article to exist either, since it doesn't establish any notability.     Paul    730  11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kenny's deaths rather than Kenny McCormick. It would be easier to find and will avoid double redirects. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above to either one. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Paul's thorough argument. I don't see how merging is a possibility because without any of these deaths explored by secondary sources, we'd have to subjectively choose which items to merge.  I think it's best to transwiki this list and encourage real-world context behind this trend. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I cannot see a reason for this when it's covered on two other articles. I don't see a reason to merge because you cannot merge the entire list, it's far too large, and as Erik pointed out, it would take a lot of secondary sources to determine which ones were notable enough to include, otherwise you'd be picking whatever you thought was good enough without actually being of any authority to do so.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. I think we're starting to overdo the fancruft/listcruft stuff. Just because something pop culture doesn't make it any less worthy of inclusion. Rocket000 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying "it's notable" means nothing if you can't establish that notability with sources, which none of these articles do. Also, your argument works both ways - something isn't worthless because it's pop culture, but that doesn't entitle it to three articles either.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.     Paul    730  05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure most people agree that it's notable (look at the comments above, even the deletes), I don't feel the need to prove it. I know my argument works both ways, that's why it's a good argument. We got to think more neutral about pop culture. Think of it as instead of watching Comedy Central, you're reading about it in a history book, and vice-versa. It seems anything pop culture receives extra (or undue) attention. I never see things like List of AAR reporting marks: P, List of people on stamps of Sri Lanka, List of baseball jargon (0-9), or List of zoo associations get labeled listcruft. All totally unreferenced, barely any context, no sign of notability, etc. It's only when it comes to pop culture. Just take a look through Special:Allpages/List of sometime, you'll be amazed at what you'll find. But for some reason it's always the lists people actually want, that people actual read, that get nominated. I'm not saying we should definitly have this specific list. Whatever the consensus is, I'm fine with. I was just voicing my opinion. Rocket000 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but "other stuff exists" isn't a good a reason to keep something. As has been stated above by several editors, including myself, Kenny's deaths probably are notable in theory, but that doesn't mean they need their own article or list.  A bunch of editors saying the joke is notable isn't helpful unless we have sources to prove it.  Unless Kenny's deaths are individually notable, they don't warrant mentioning.  If, for example, a certain death ellicited controversy in the media, then it would certainly warrant mentioning.  But if not, then it's just another joke on another TV series, and doesn't deserve it's own article.  The joke itself can be covered without listing every instance of it.  And just because people like it or find it useful does not mean it deserves a separate article or list.     Paul    730  06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting this article should be keep because "other stuff exists". I mentioned that stuff to help explain to you my point. How pop culture gets special attention. It had nothing to do with keeping/deleting this article. I never suggested each individual death is notable. If they were then they should each have an article. But they're not, that's why a list is appropriate. I'm sorry, but you're totally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Rocket000 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest perceiving Wikipedia in a different light? Try to see pop culture from a historical perspective.  Every generation, there is a staggering amount of information procured by the media.  The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, which is determined by reliable sources.  While I am all for exploring the cultural impact of Kenny's all-too-frequent deaths, this list is merely a primary-source compilation that does not serve to enhance this particular pop culture notion.  There are many different details that could be compiled under a certain fictional topic or an umbrella of fictional topics -- every surgery in medical TV series, every backstab in soap operas, etc.  Such details are meaningless if they are not enhanced with real-world context.  This is essentially a compilation of plot detail, void of secondary sources.  It would be more beneficial to Wikipedia if the topic of Kenny's deaths was fleshed out with information from secondary sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, there's a copy of this article on Answers.com, even though the article has yet to be edited. If the article is deleted, I should just copy from the Answers.com article (and if I didn't give a source, it would plagerize the article). However, I really don't want anything to be deleted, and I'm a high-functioning autistic. I do have one question though, would one person consider merging the article with this article?  L D E J R u f f  ( talk ) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (EDT)
 * Answers.com is a site that mirrors Wikipedia content (though usually a bit behind), so no plagiarism on either end. Collectonian (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as trivia. The appropriate coverage already exists in the other articles so no merge is needed nor is it desirable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.