Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapper Keeper (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 SNOW keep  Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Trapper Keeper (South Park)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources to establish notability. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am in total agreement that the lack of sourcing is appalling, but it seems to me that South Park is notable enough of a series for all of the episodes to have an article.  young  american  (wtf?) 11:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a valid argument, as notability is not inherited.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I disagree with the idea that all episodes of a notable TV series are entitled to their own article, although I don't think there's a specific policy about it. In the early days of Wikipedia, these were useful for people to sharpen their writing skills by working on something that was of interest to them.  Unfortunately, it led to the idea that every TV episode, character, catchphrase, etc., deserved its own article.  With the advent of entertainment wikis, Wikipedia no longer needs to be the host for fanpages.  This can be mentioned in the article about whatever season it was shown, and the larger version can be repeated at | "South Park Archives", the entertainment Wiki.  Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I too felt that the quality of many South Park articles was rather lacking and made a move to merge them to a general list of episodes, starting with season 1. Much to my surprise (and largely through the efforts of a single editor), these early episodes have been brought up to a high standard, with plenty of notability supplied. Check both these early and the very latest episodes for comparison with this one. This is part of a concerted drive to improve all South Park articles, so I have every faith that by the time this article is reached, it will be treated in the same manner. Alastairward (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as per previous consensus. As Alastariward points out above, we've had this discussion before. Questions were raised as to whether the individual South Park episodes were notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia entries, and there was a proposal to merge them into a general list. After long discussions (here and here) and a number of edits, it was determined that the articles not only had notability, but many of those articles were improved, to the point that some are now featured articles, including "Damien" (before and after) and "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" (before and after). Not only that, but a consensus was reached (see the above links to the discussion) that the remaining South Park articles would be kept as long as a long-term improvement effort were established, which was done in the form of the South Park Featured Topic Drive. Given that consensus alone, this article should not be deleted. That being said, though, I will try to make some improvements to this particular episode's entry in the next couple days... —  Hunter   Kahn  ( c )  20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hunter can fix it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep And apparently, Hunter has fixed it. The only reason that this passes is that there is some "real world notability" established in that this was noticed in the press at the time that it was broadcast.  Although Wikipedia is still top-heavy with TV character and sports articles, there is no right of entitlement for such things.  All TV episodes will eventually be judged by the real world impact standard.  Those pages that are limited to "I watched this the other day and here's what happened" will find new life in other wikis.  Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes and no. They will all be judged by notability, but more of them are notable than people think.  I think Hunter has a LexisNexis account. or maybe he doesn't.  Anyways, with such an account, sources can be found for every single episode of a lot of shows.  It's too bad wikipedia doesn't have an account with them that editors can use, because then we could quickly and accurately determine which ones are notable, and which ones aren't.  Most of the time, for older stuff, we're really just guessing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "And apparently, Hunter has fixed it." Actually, I was the one who added the sources. I'd just like to point that out... :-)  The left orium  11:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Lefto. I guess I've been confused by these reassurances that "Hunter will fix it" and "Hunter will sort it out".  I honestly had never heard of Hunter until yesterday.  Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job, Leftorium! You beat me to the punch. ;) —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. ;) Can you check if there's anything else that can be added? I'd be nice if we could get it to GA status.  The left orium  18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys rock. How are you both getting all the (seemingly) offline sources?  Is it something anybody can do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine usually indeed do come from LexisNexis. You should check your local library's website. Sometimes they have free access to Lexis or similar databases if you're a member of the library... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LexisNexis to the rescue it seems, my Google searches never do the trick. Alastairward (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I use NewsBank for that. You need a library card number, though (but it's free).  The left orium  18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep there have been notable deletes pertaining to SP, but as I can recall, the consensus seems to be towards keeping the episodes. Nergaal (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hunter.  The Flash  {talk} 05:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Hunter will sort it out. Martarius (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Hopefully some of my improvements to the article will show that.  The left orium  14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  19:54, 30 July 2009 (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.