Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities on 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. On the keep arguments: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:INHERITED. Also, just because the list is well-defined doesn't mean that it's notable or sourceable in third-party sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities on South Park

Purely trivial list with little-to-no potential for being placed within the context of real world information. Article serves more as a repository for a die-hard fan to view who has appeared on the show, and as a long cast listing. It's one stand-alone trivia entry after another, and whatever notability can be established about a celebrity's appearance on the show would be better suited on the show's main article, or an article for the episode in which they appear. This could only be accomplished with a minor percentage of those on this list. SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I though a list of celebs who have guest starred on the show might be useful, but this is a list of of both celebs who have been on the show and celebs that have been drawn on the show (but voiced by Stone/Parker). I see no value in the list. TJ Spyke 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs refs adding. Compare with The Simpsons article that does the same thing. SIMPSONS DID IT! SIMPSONS DID IT! Ahem. Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These two articles are completely different. The Simpsons article is a list of celebs who have guess starred on the show. This is a list of celebs featured on the show whether or not the celeb voiced themselves (the overwhelmingly majority of the people on the list are just Matt Stone and Trey Parker voicing them). TJ Spyke 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke, poorly defined list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? Delete Antonio Banderas from the list, it was an iflatable ... toy. Keep the rest. I don't buy nominator's stand-alone trivia hook; this "definition" applies to any list. The list is nearly perfect, apart from rubber Antonio... NVO (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article basically reads "xxxx was depicted in South Park" over and over. If the appearance can be supported by notability, such info can be integrated into said celebrity's article or the appropriate SP-related article (read above). If by "perfect" you mean it is a complete listing of each celebrity who has been depicted, then that it is true. But how is it encyclopedic? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are following your own logic that is hardly comprehensible for outsiders... Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists of people is not applicable here, because the list is not selective, it's purportedly all-inclusive, thus there is no need to justify inclusion of every Joe and Jane through their notablility. Bare fact of appearance need not be "supported by notability", it just exists, confirmed by actual footage and sounftrack. Or maybe you are questioning the topic of the list (portrayal of real-world notable people in a notable show)? NVO (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to clarify myself then... If the article is "all-inclusive", I feel it is an inappropriate repository of sorts because the overwhelming majority of those on the list (possibly 100%) are not most famous for having appeared on the show. Of course the show is notable. Of course the celebs are notable. Yes, the show spoofs celebrities. But how many celebs on this list fit within the scope of having been subject to a significant parodying within the show's larger scope of addressing themes and issues (rather than just a simple portrayal, i.e., having their name mentioned, being subject to mere ridicule, or being depicted on screen for 5 seconds)? I don't see it as enough to warrant an entire list article, but in essence that's what is for everyone else to discuss and decide. Hopefully I'm not being more incomprehensible, but this is the best way I feel I can explain my thoughts on this. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How many?" As many as fit the declared scope (each list begins with a scope). A single mention of Helen Hunt's private parts does not count. Barbara Streisand or Phil Collins as "chief antagonists" do. All the gray areas can be sorted out within the article, not here. NVO (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er...for the record, I was being rhetorical. Don't wanna give the impression that I was suggesting that such an additional discussion be started here. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list of notable real world people on a series is pretty much the definition of the sort of thing that is real world information. DGG (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ex: Helen Hunt (ep. 701, Cancelled); she was simply mentioned. Where's the potential for information regarding info on the cultural impact? Author's intention? Description of her mentioning as an essential piece of the narrative? Too many other names on this list face the same problem. A good, rare exception would be Kanye West, whose appearance is significant and already well-explained from a real-world perspective in an appropriate article (Fishsticks) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not belong there, fix it. Best way, through redefining inclusion rules and a general cleanup accordingly. Unfortunately, as long as AFD is running, few folks will seriously invest their time in an overhaul. NVO (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though if you delete it, there are versions on the French and Russian wikis that should come up for deletion talk as well. JB82 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a word of advice, admins will ignore what you said as AFD's are discussions and NOT votes. You have to give a reason for why you think a article should be kept. TJ Spyke 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question shouldn't this list be moved to "List of celebrities portrayed on South Park"? If that is the case, then the point of this AfD would be to debate weather portrayal of celebrities on South Park (which IS one of the biggest recurring themes on the show) is a relevant enough entry for wikipedia. Yeah, the format right now is close to horrendous, but leaving that aside, I believe that the scope of the article (as I understand it) should justify the existance of the article. Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - most are indeed portrayed (or pissed off), the one actually providing voices or otherwise credited are a minority. NVO (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — well-defined list, but not about a notable topic. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ship it to some fan-wiki dumping ground. I like south park, but procedurally these sorts of lists are OR and, well, simply not independently notable from the show (and the endless episode summaries).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus. The problem with these "List of X" articles is that all they do is become a mindnumbing list of every X. The solution is to build in their place articles such as Celebrity depictions on South Park (or a better title), which would discuss - using reliable sources - the topic of celebrities having the piss ripped out of them by South Park, which is certainly a notable topic. It wouldn't need to list each and every one. Some quick examples of sources:[1][2][3][4][5] Fences and windows (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere trivia. Such information can be noted elsewhere. Eusebeus (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of trivia and cruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined list, real-world people, Series highly popular. Nominating this for deletion is like trying to sweep the waves back into the Ocean, attracting all the usual Cruft and Trivia arguments and their opposites - and Oh, all the Dramah. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly uncited to naught but primary sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every item is sourced actually, see those Ep:112 notes? Those are cited to the original episodes which makes sense. The rest is clean-up issues to move this from trivilizing content to being a helpful list. These are not reasons to delete or complain but to fix and offer constructive solutions. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was reply to my comment immediately above, I said that it's only sourced to primary sources, ergo lacking any evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (as per the Notability guideline). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you tried looking for secondary sources discussing the depiction of celebrities on South Park? I don't think you have, as there are hundreds of sources. I linked to a handful above. Fences and windows (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actuall it was more for Lugnuts but your point is well taken that non-primary sources would help and as Fences and windows points out, they too exist. -- Banjeboi 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.