Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of staff at South Park Elementary


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of staff at South Park Elementary

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nothing but quartenary characters with a few exceptions. The few that are notable can be merged to the character list; the rest should go as they're barely worth a mention. List of students at South Park Elementary was kept in 2009 for God knows what reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - List has the practical effect of concentrating what might be a multiplicity of pages to a single page, something that should warm every deletionist's heart... Ultra-notable show, this list includes clearly notable characters along with those who are more obscure. This nomination has the proverbial snowball's chance, BTW, so anticipating a quick snow result here... —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
 * Additional comment - List has clearly defined criteria for inclusion and is finite. —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.


 * Keep per Carrite's argument. Jimmy Pitt   talk  09:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the powerful (sincere and well-meaning) case made for "keep." Yes the show is notable, that's why WP has an article on it.  WHEN WILL FANS GET IT????  Giving excessive details about the object of your fandom is actually harmful to the object of your attentions.  Write one medium length article on the show itself. That's all.  Then people who want to know more will have to tune in or go the video store etc. to see for themselves.  This is better for them and much better for the show.  You will also save yourself a lot of wasted time and effort. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I make myself clear? Keep South Park.  Delete the other 9,999 related fandom articles from WP.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not rooted in policy. Everything for which notability can be established can have its own article. 96T (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but for the opposite reason - this is a reasonable fork from the primary south park article. Normally, the article on a TV show will list the characters from that show - this article would be part of that list, but for readability and size concerns. It does also prevent the creation of an article for each such character, as well. If there were fewer characters, fewer list articles might make sense - but the show's been on for what, 12 years? I appreciate that haters are going to hate, but this one is a pretty easy call. If you wish to amend policy so that each article on a TV show has a section that reads "The show had characters. There were several of them. They did things;"... then have at. But some information on the characters is reasonable, and that's the function this article fills for the South Park article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if what I said seemed too harsh. Of course the article on the show should say who the main characters are and mention something about the types of minor characters. These are important aspects of the show. What's not needed is a lot of detail about, for instance, the shop teacher. If a person decides to watch the show he/she will find this out for him/herself. If not then it will be of no interest or value to that person.  If a person has seen that episode he/she will already know what is given in the article (hence fancruft).Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From Encyclopedia: "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry, but notability is not inherited. Sure, the show is notable, but fictional elements in the show are not if there is no significant independent coverage in sources. As it stands, this is just original research written by the show's fans.— Chris! c / t 20:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is little OR on the student list. It has 62 references. Though many (probably a little more than half, I didn't count) are from official South Park sources, there are still plenty independent sources, several of which deal exclusively with characters from this list. 96T (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are those 62 references? Clearly there is no inline citations and they are not listed in the article's reference section. Also official South Park sources are not independent sources. If we remove those entries without independent sources, there isn't much info left here.— Chris! c / t 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 62 references, as we speak, in List of students at South Park Elementary, which is one of two lists (of very different quality, one establishes notability, the other doesn't) up for deletion here. I don't think both lists should be nominated in the same AFD. 96T (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't notice that List of students at South Park Elementary is a part of this afd. The student list has plenty of independent sources, thus it is notable enough for inclusion. But the staff list has no independent sources, thus it is not notable enough for inclusion. So, the student should be kept and the staff list should be deleted, or at least redirect to List of characters in South Park.— Chris! c / t 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep a list of not-individually notable minor characters is a reasonable breakout per WP:SS. Delete !voters are not making any new points: no one is claiming that any of these characters are individually notable--lots of pretty WP:IDONTLIKEIT there. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, non-notable minor characters somehow become notable if they are presented in a single list. Sorry, that makes no sense to me. I don't think the keep voters are making policy-based argument at all. They are all just WP:ILIKEIT.— Chris! c / t 21:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense because that's not what is being said. The show is notable, the list is a reasonable content fork (so WP:NOTINHERITED is not applicable), but nobody is suggesting that the individual characters are notable. (And as for WP:ILIKEIT, I've never even seen the show; I'd prefer that we discuss the list on its merits). Jimmy Pitt   talk  07:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a reasonable content fork doesn't mean the article is notable enough for inclusion. WP:NOTINHERITED is about the notability of the article and is certainly applicable. At any rate, I am only referring to the staff list here. List of students at South Park Elementary should be kept because it has plenty of independent sources, thus making it notable enough for inclusion.— Chris! c / t 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per UltraExactZZ, who sets forth exactly why this sort of list article is useful.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for several reasons, but mostly, per Carrite - it keeps the cruft out of the main article and is a clearly defined list. Also per Jimmy Pitt - it is a reasonable content fork.  It is a useful list with at least one good cite.  Many lists of characters have been created or kept when notability is in doubt but the concept has some supporters, thus no consensus exists to delete it.  Finally, it is a list that is useful for our primary audience, i.e., students. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other options, for example, see Monster (manga) and Mother 3. However, as with List of characters in The Simpsons, the main article is too long, and per UltraExactZZ, a separate article or list is best. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)  P.S. FWIW, someone created Characters of Mother 3 anyway. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, the student list at least, as a reasonable fork from List of characters in South Park, as there are too many characters on South Park to cover all on one page. This list is thoroughly references with many secondary sources that establish notability both for individual characters (see for example and  for the character Timmy) and for South Park minor characters in general . One should also note that the list has been purged of non-notable characters several times (see its talk page). 96T (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the staff article, it doesn't establish notability for its characters (the two staff members with established notability, Mr. Garrison and Chef, have their own articles), and it should probably be merged into List of characters in South Park. 96T (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'm getting really sick of these "cruft" arguments, "keep South Park but delete all related articles" is like saying "keep Chemistry but delete all articles about elements in the periodic table" or "keep Olympic games but delete all the articles full of data about who won what medals in every sport in every competition". All of this is reliably sourceable, all of this is verifiable, and all of this can be written about from a (real world) neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not paper, and I still fail to understand why going into detail about a highly notable TV show is damaging to the project but going into detail about sports competitions isn't. - file lake  shoe  00:13, 4 October 2010 (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.