Conservapedia:AFD South Park

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

South Park

Result --- Keep

Not encyclopedic content.--TimSvendsen 19:20, 24 January 2007 (EST)

  • Why isn't it? It is a vulgar cartoon, but that doesn't mean we have to have a vulgar article about it. We just need to expand the article to suit the ideals of Conservapedia. David R
    • We do not want to have an article on every cartoon or TV show because A) there are so many of them. B) We are not a movie/TV review site. C) number 10 on our list of examples of wikipedia bias is the following "10. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." An entry on South Park, (or any cartoon or TV show) does not have educational value. entries like that are one of the reasons that we criticize Wikipedia). --TimSvendsen 22:27, 24 January 2007 (EST)


He is right; there is no reason to have an article on south park. It is not informative and i doubt whether all the information you could gather on it would be encyclopedia-worthy.

--BenjaminS 22:58, 24 January 2007 (EST)


Hey, then go ahead...Delete it; I'm all for it. South Park truly has NO educational value. I am just saying that deletions could quickly get out of hand. Wikipedia exercises its deletion policies way too much. Let's not be them. David R

We Have over 3000 entries, and have deleted 1 so far. That is less than 0.04%. I do not think that deletions are getting out if hand. Actually I think Wikipedia's Deletion policy is not strict enough. --TimSvendsen 23:12, 24 January 2007 (EST)

  • You have got a few I thinks in there. Well I know their deletion policy is biased and exercised too freely. I know that if we make trivial deletions, things will get out of hand. But this discussion is traveling WAY off topic. I say delete it. David R
    • What I was Saying is that Wikipedia has lots of articles that should be deleted, but are not. deletions will not get "out of hand", because we controll them. what do you mean "trivial"? --TimSvendsen 14:35, 25 January 2007 (EST)

This article has no educational value and is not encyclopedic content, so I think it should be deleted. There are plenty of places on the web for such information, but an encyclopedia is not one of them. ~ SharonS 12:56, 25 January 2007 (EST)

The article should not be deleted. The article gives concise and useful information. Since South Park is a cartoon that is overtly political and unfortunately popular, it has an influence on popular culture, and it affects the political views of many of its audience members. South Park’s popularity and cultural influence make this article both relevant, and ‘encyclopedic.’ --EWJ 17:48, 26 January 2007 (EST)

OK, I have no problem with keeping this article as long as we create rules about what TV shows/Cartoons/Movies/Etc. we will allow. --TimSvendsen 15:34, 7 February 2007 (EST)

South Park is just a waist of time. Will N


  • Comment:
The Encyclopaedia Britannica is interesting to check, because it is a traditional encyclopaedia, written by credentialed experts and controlled by a small number of professional editors.
The online website does not have an article devoted to South Park.
South Park and its creators do get a single-sentence in a (rather interesting) discussion U. S. television animation in a portion of the article on "Animation: Contemporary developments"
U.S. television animation, pioneered in the 1950s by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera (Yogi Bear, The Flintstones) was for years synonymous with primitive techniques and careless writing. But with the debut of The Simpsons in 1989, TV animation became home to a kind of mordant social commentary or outright absurdism (John Kricfalusi's Ren and Stimpy) that was too pointedly aggressive for live-action realism. When Mike Judge's Beavis and Butt-Head debuted on the MTV network in 1993, the rock-music cable channel discovered that cartoons could push the limits of censorship in ways no live-action television productions could. Following Judge's success in 1997 were Trey Parker and Matt Stone with South Park, a series centred on foulmouthed kids growing up in the American Midwest and rendered in a flat, cutout animation style that would have looked primitive in 1906. The spiritual father of the new television animation is Jay Ward, whose Rocky and His Friends, first broadcast in 1959, turned the threadbare television style into a vehicle for absurdist humour and adult satire.[1] Dpbsmith 10:21, 10 February 2007 (EST) Dpbsmith 10:23, 10 February 2007 (EST)


I vote keep for now, maybe later it can be merged ito an article called "influential cartoons" or something. --TimSvendsen 19:43, 14 February 2007 (EST)

  • I agree very strongly with TimS. Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


I say delete. It does not have any value whatsoever, let alone educational value. Just a potty-mouthed cartoon for small minded people. --Rafael

Just out of curiosity, who here has actually watched more than one episode of South Park? --Hojimachongtalk 19:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:AFD_South_Park"
Personal tools