Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aliens hidden in South Park


 * 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. --- Gl e n 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

List of aliens hidden in South Park
More South Park fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Delete Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm going to fall back on "Wikipedia is not paper" on this one. This is verifiable information of interest to South Park fans, and doesn't lend itself to merger elsewhere. Rohirok 03:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tychocat is right. All the alien appearances can be summed up in one sentence of trivia. It's not up to encyclopedia to list all of them. Rohirok 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. LOL. --Sonjaaa 03:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any reason why? Jaranda wat's sup 04:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Fancruft, See also WP:DUMB --Shirahadasha 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP is not paper, nor is it a junk collection.  Of course fancruft is of interest to fans:  That's not the point, nor is it notability.  Tychocat 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft. NOT paper, but also NOT an indiscriminate collection. (|--   UlT i MuS  04:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not paper, and a organzied list is not indiscriminate, rather very systematic. No reason to delete.  Note: Fancfut is an essay, not a policy and not a valid deletion reason.  Just becase editors not interested in fiction decided to label stuff as cruft doesn't make it a polciy.  Delete as "fanfuft" is the same as Delete as "Boring"  Second Note: I am saying this as a non-south-park-fan.  Tobyk777 05:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it is also stupid cruft, it is also, essentially, original research. Adam Bishop 05:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Southparkcruft, and likely OR. --User:Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Sources need to be provided though or it qualifies as original research. If no sources are added within a week I would suggest relisting. VegaDark 06:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment relisting so quickly will guarantee a speedy keep. The creators have 5 days to source this while the AfD is active.  If it is not sourced by the end of the AfD it should be deleted.--Isotope23 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, that sounds acceptable. VegaDark 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per VegaDark and Tobyk777. This is not indiscriminatory. I'd like to ask the people who use the term cruft (which is essentially a term covering multiple possible reasons) to be specific about the reasons to want to use. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Quite unnecessary and not at all encyclopedic. All of this is quite trivial information.  Wickethewok 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete... as much as I love South Park, I agree with Wickethewok... this is absolutely trivial and unnecessary. More importantly, it fails WP:V and WP:NOR and thus should be deleted.--Isotope23 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's easily verifiable -- just watch the episodes, they're all available on DVD and/or shown constantly on TV.  However, while I've been curious about where all the aliens are (it's well-known that there are hidden aliens in most episodes), I'm not sure it warrants its own entry. HalJor 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, watching the episodes, copying down when/where an alien appears, and writing an article about it would constitute original research. An external source where someone has documented these appearances and published the work would need to be produced for this to be verified.--Isotope23 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What!? How is watching a source and taking note of what you see original research? That's like saying that reading a novel and compiling a list of characters from it is original research. Rohirok 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, In my opinion that too would constitute original research because you would essentially be creating a primary source (i.e. a list of characters when one previously did not exist). Depending on your view on sources, this is at the very least research that draws on primary sources (if you take the view of a South Park episode as a primary source) and that is generally discouraged.--Isotope23 18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is notable. Whats wrong with it?Plowright 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User has 15 edits, mostly AFD. Jaranda wat's sup 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Article can easily be merged with the main South Park page. I don't understand why the creator of this article didn't put it under a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worthlessboy1420 (talk • contribs)
 * At best maybe merge the alien hidden to the espisote it belongs, all this info clearly don't belong in the main South Park page. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and WP:OR. Would we keep List of red things (an equally random selection and just as verifiable by research from primary sources)? Yomangani talk 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Even more people have voted to Delete this a fancruft since I made my comment. Fancuft is not a policy and is not a valid reason to Delete.  If you can't supply other reasons for which to delete then your votes shouldn't be counted in the tally when the admin tries to find consensus.  Tobyk777 01:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There also people that is voting this as uncyclopedic, which I nominated as fancruft is another word for uncyclopedic, and also per WP:V and WP:OR which is valid Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. If this is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I don't know what is ;-) Ohconfucius 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Enough with South Park--Saddam Hussein, and now aliens. Look, try to reach consensus to put it on the Hussein page, or in this case, on the alien page, or an alien pop culture entry, and I expect you'll run into roadblocks in the first two instances, but with good, good reason: this is so unimaginably nn, that even the aliens hiding haven't heard of it.-Kmaguir1 09:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is nothing less than trying to turn Wikipedia into an online Where's Waldo hunt for South Park fans. Merge the alien sightings into the Trivia sections of the appropriate episodes, and make a Category tag on each of them if you really must have a list. I mean, this frelling list doesn't even have links back to the episodes!!  --Dennette 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - better than Pokemon cruft though. Flying Jazz 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, utter fancruft. Sandstein 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Come on --R.A Huston 04:38, 5 September 2006 (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.