Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Park themes


 * 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 article as it stands is OR, and probably SYNTH. It cites a few quotes -- all to primary sources -- but it then interprets those quotes in the manner of an essay. It may be true that the topic is notable and that there are many secondary reliable sources available... but none of them is in evidence. Not a single one has been added to the article during the course of this AfD, or even mentioned on its talk page. I am closing this as delete, with no prejudice to the creation of an article on this topic that draws properly from sources. Shimeru (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

South Park themes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The whole article is sheer OR: author's own interpretation of how SP treats certain theme. OR and RS templates were added two years ago and there doesn't seem to have been any improvements. --Blacklake (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a good article with a lot of interesting information, but unless it is sourced to secondary published sources ("such and such a source said something is a theme in South Park") then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreeing with Kitfoxxe on both counts: the article provides interesting analysis of the themes in South Park, but it is original analysis without citing independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously notable. Original analysis can be solved by the usual way: i.e. edit the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do, I assume, have reliable third-party sources to point to which indicate notability? Surely you are not suggesting it is notable without supporting evidence. ÷seresin 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, AFD is not for cleanup. There are tons and tons of secondary sources devoted to this - actually, whole entire books devoted to this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep As already stated - AfD is not cleanup.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Lugnuts and others. We better be careful or WP will have its own episode and I bet Cartman will be the deletionist Admin.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 8 May 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.