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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of students at South Park Elementary[edit]

List of students at South Park Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Overly indiscriminate characters list, listing every single one-shot in the series. I'm fine with listing the four main boys along with other semi-majors like Butters, but there's just way too much information on this list, most of which is in-universe/fancrufty expansion on List of characters in South Park. The main character list is fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question once the list is trimmed down to <10 or whatever how do you propose to prevent future additions of minor characters? Drawn Some (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You delete the list so we don't keep playing whack-a-mole with the minor characters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about on the other list. There are literally millions of South Park fans, they are going to add these characters somewhere somehow. It's similar to the xxxx in popular culture articlists that are springing up. I 'm not implying that means it ought to be kept, I'm just saying it's something to consider. Drawn Some (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the main list of characters, but keep all of the info. It's well sourced and written just fine. 02:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)TJ Spyke
• Delete as trivia. Everything only here is only here because it couldn't responsibly be included in any of the other articles, so they got around that with yet another list. ThuranX (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to delete this list as trivia, everything on it would have to be, well, trivia, which it isn't. And there's nothing wrong with creating several articles when one would have been too long. 96T (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That which isn't trivia is covered elsewhere already, and that redundancy serves to mask the triviality of the 'unique' instances. ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it isn't. I'm not saying that all the characters are notable (they aren't), but some of them are. Check out the sections on Timmy and Token Black - both contain real-world information and multiple non-trivial secondary sources that establish notability. Most of the information on characters such as these (and other notable characters whose notability isn't fully established by secondary sources yet) can't be found in any other article. 96T (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to say delete, though a model for a list of this scope that I would consider reasonable appears at List of one-time characters in The Simpsons. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 11:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • or the "list" at Springfield Elementary School. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that many characters in this list can be summed up in a sentence or two, like the Simpsons minor characters there, but the more notable ones, like Token and Timmy, need more coverage. 96T (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as a fork-for-length. JJL (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a strong keep actually, as the right sort of article. Need I mention the once-popular alternative of having individual articles? This is the way to present material and still avoid that trap. TPH, I propose a simple solution: we KEEP the list, and agree not to make articles on the minor characters. I can't promise what other people will do, but I certainly will use whatever suggestive power I have to join you (and everyone else who like us wants a reasonable solution) in preventing this. In return, you try your best jointly with me (and the other reasonable people here) to prevent the deletion of combination articles.. We can then discuss the proper amount of content for each of the characters. And, even more important, get the descriptions written in a more encyclopedic way. Deleting an acceptable article to prevent people making bad articles out of it does not make sense--its like saying, we cant do this perfectly so lets not do it at all. If we had waited for articles to be done right, the encyclopedia would not have gotten very far. DGG (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main character list if necessary. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A rather well-defined list, backed up with dozens of reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More suited for a fansite, not needed on Wikipedia. However, if you wanted to keep the content, you could always add it as a section to the South Park article. If you were going to keep this article, you would then have to create a more notable article of the "List Of Students At Springfield Elementary School" for the far more notable The Simpsons. Enough said. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • That list ACTUALLY exists, but it is simply not named as a list; it is called Springfield Elementary School. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other stuff doesn't exist isn't a valid reason for deletion. Neither is "not needed". There are way too many South Park characters to include all notable information about all of them in the main article. And I'm not that familiar with The Simpsons, but keep in mind that South Park Elementary is one of the main settings, and probably the main setting, of South Park, and I don't think Springfield Elementary plays the same role on The Simpsons. 96T (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sky Attacker this is trivia to the max. JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of notability. We don't delete articles becuase they might be written poorly or because they might have too much information. If there are problems with the article, fix them. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Although I've been working on this article for some time, and in all modesty noticeably improved it, I completely agree that it's too long, full of trivia, and in-universe, but the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The article cites many sources, including enough third party sources to establish notability for individual characters (this one, for example). There are many characters on this list that aren't particularly notable, true, but that could be sorted out by trimming the list (perhaps by turning the "Background characters in the fourth grade" section into a simple point list), not by deleting the entire list and letting all the notable characters (Craig, Jimmy, Timmy, Token, the Goth Kids et al) go with the non-notable ones. The reason there are several lists of South Park minor characters and not a single one is that one such list would be too long. 96T (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to convince me to keep the article, you could start by gutting it, removing the non-notable ones and stripping it down to ones for which third-party sources exist. I'm suggesting to delete because the article seems so bad that this seems unrealistic. Prove me wrong! Cazort (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AFAICT, This was split off from the main character list due to WP:SIZE concerns. If merged, the article text would be over 87KB. Furthermore, I think this is at least as notable as List of one-time characters in The Simpsons, which recently survived AFD and also survived several previous AFDs. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles grow to unmanageable sizes because people do not police them against people adding material that cannot be referenced in independent sources. The pages are being treated like a fan wiki and this is inappropriate. Cazort (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems there are multiple problems with this article. Many of the editors above have asserted that this article is well-sourced. I would like to raise the concern that the "http://www.southparkstudios.com/" site, and references to the episodes themselves, are not independent sources. This is highly problematic--it can't establish the notability of any of the material here. Such sources are only appropriate to fill in small details once the overall notability of the material has been established by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This whole page looks a lot like a fan wiki, not an encyclopedia. The page is so heavily reliant on episodes and the studio site that I think it's basically unsalvageable. Cazort (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'd like to point out that there are also many secondary sources in the article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. These are from different media and include both articles dealing exclusively with single characters and articles that aren't about South Park at all, but refer to individual characters. Google News searches show that there is much out there: Searches for Timmy, Token, Jimmy, and Goth Kids, for example, all return dozens to thousands of hits, many of which seem to be relevant. I'll add as many secondary sources as I can into the article and probably (I haven't got that much time these days, exams coming up) trim/remove all the stuff about the non-notable characters in the next days or the near future, and hopefully other people will do the same. 96T (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I change my recommendation to Keep. Still needs cleanup, yes. And I am still very bothered by how much it relies on the episodes themselves as sources, yes, but I think you've convinced me the content here is notable. Cazort (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep this debate is ridiculous. The school in south park plays the same role as 742 Evergreen Terrace for The Simpsons. Nevertheless, while the school is FAAAR less important for Simpsons than it is for South Park, there is AN IDENTICAL article to this one at Springfield Elementary School which simply lacks the "List of" part in the title (one should look carefully at that article and then see the obcious similarity b/w this article and that hidden list). Furthermore, The Simpsons has multiple, much less notable/relevant/wikipediable lists such as List of fictional characters within The Simpsons, List of one-time characters in The Simpsons, List of animals in The Simpsons, List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, Rainier Wolfcastle, Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character). Until these get deleted, arguing that the present list should be deleted is a clear lack of impartiallity. Nevertheless, List of staff at South Park Elementary should/may/could be merged with this list. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its something people would find interesting, and if you don't, you wouldn't be likely to find it at all. It is as valid as any other list of information. Keep it as it is, don't erase all the one time characters or anything lame and bitter like that, or try to delete it with a merge/redirect(this isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I have seen these sorts of horrible things happen before, so wanted to clarify that keep means keep all of it). Dream Focus 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed all the characters that only appear in one episode, compressed the "Background characters in the fourth grade" section into a brief list, rewritten some sections, added more secondary sources, and removed some of the more dubious claims. I'll keep working on the article in the near future, but not today and not tomorrow as I simply haven't got time. But the article is now much shorter and less trivial, and in my humble opinion it clearly establishes the notability of Craig Tucker, Timmy, and Token Black through secondary sources. Searches on Google News show that there are enough secondary sources to establish notability for the other characters who now have their own sections as well (I found this, this and this article dealing with Pip, for example). Unless someone else does, I'll get to all of them as soon as I have the time, as well as improving the sections on the characters for whom notability has been established. 96T (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The series and the major characters are certainly notable and a summary character list is certainly acceptable. The main character list provides very little information and serves as an acceptable overview while this list presents a more nuanced description without belabouring the issues. An acceptable list article that can show the way forward as each character develops on their own. We saw this happen with Pip and Butters each getting more full treatment and story development. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One-offs can be removed, but for the sake of the moderately notable classmates, the article should be kept. Its potential for improvement is reason enough. If it is deleted, create a redirect destination for Timmy, Token, Pip, etc. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on second thought...Merge. All of the info on the more notable students can be merged into the "students" section of List of characters in South Park. Just get rid of the wikitable format for that particular section. Come to think of it, this would probably be best for the "families", "townsfolk", "faculty", and "minor characters" sections as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are two merge all these lists into the main character list, there's no reason to delete. Merging and redirecting will be fine. 96T (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed my mind back to Keep, but only for the time being (and for the reasons I gave on my initial "keep" vote). Merging it right away into List of characters in South Park would throw that article out of whack, seeing as how it's a list-class article consisting entirely of wikitables. I've opened a discussion on the South Park WikiProject discussion page about the possibility of merging this and the other character lists into one article. So, yeah, keep the article so that a merger can be discussed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article has relevant and interesting information about characters in SP that don't fit neatly into the SP article itself without making that article massive. It seems reasonable enough to keep it with so many editors pledging to improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noosentaal (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a thorough cleanup of this article, and also opened a discussion on its talk page. I know I had voted for "delete" earlier (before changing it back to "keep"), but in essence I was suggesting a merger of primary and seconday characters and the deletion of insignificant background character descriptions. This nomination isn't really justified considering that a cleanup would resolve the issues addressed by the proponents of a deletion. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:31, 16 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.