Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of South Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 08:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unencyclopedic and completely subjective.
- Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. PJM 15:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In July 2005, it was discussed on Talk:Politics of South Park that the article comprised solely editors' own analyses of the political stance of South Park, presented as though they were Wikipedia's own opinions, and was thus both biased and original research (an issue that had been raised a month before on Talk:South Park Republican). Sources and attribution were requested then. The article has sported neutrality and accuracy dispute tags in the months since, and during that time not a single source has been cited in the article to indicate that this is not original research, and no attempt has been made to attribute the opinions on the politics of the show to the people who actually hold them, or even indicate that anyone other than the editors themselves who are writing the article hold those opinions. (On Talk:South Park Republican, an editor refused outright to cite xyr source.) The evidence of the edit history and talk pages is thus that there is no scope for this article to be anything other than non-neutral and original research. We are here to create an encyclopaedia that condenses and summarizes existing knowledge that has already been peer reviewed and published, not to collaborate on creating from scratch a political treatise about a television show. Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. So what is being argued here? Are you saying that this subject is inherently NPOV/OR, or that what is posted now is such? I do not see why a perfectly satisfactory article can not be created discussing the politics of South Park. This is a program many people watch, and more have heard of. It has pushed the envelope, and is notable. Now, if you don't like the current content, why not edit it? Sandpiper 19:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The only satisfactory edit as things stand is to delete the article. You assert that a "perfectly satisfactory article can be created". This implies that you know of sources on this subject that can be used to create such an article. So cite them. Merely claiming that this isn't original research and can be rendered neutral, without actually demonstrating that it isn't original research and providing sources to work from, won't cut the mustard any longer. Sources have been requested for five months, and not only have editors not provided them, they have even refused to provide them, one stating that xyr contributions are the "product of some research I had been doing". It is now crunch time. The currently unsubstantiated assertion that this isn't original research now has to be backed up with something concrete within the next few days. Uncle G 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need to cite a source to state an opinion here, nor does anyone else. It is my view which counts here. The idea is to seek consensus not win by playing a trump card? Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is, as I have already said, to create an encyclopaedia that condenses and summarizes existing knowledge that has already been peer reviewed and published, not to collaborate on creating from scratch a political treatise about a television show. Uncle G 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but did it used to be to create an encyclopedia which people could rely upon to tell them accurately what they wanted to know about anything? Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Things that humans want to know about is not the same as things that humans do know about. Wanting to know about things that people don't know about is, after all, why people do original research. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no (really no). Wiki notion of OR is not at all the same as the real world meaning of OR. It is much more restrictive. Things rejected on wiki would be laughed out of the examination, if submitted for a degree where OR was expected. Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Things that humans want to know about is not the same as things that humans do know about. Wanting to know about things that people don't know about is, after all, why people do original research. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but did it used to be to create an encyclopedia which people could rely upon to tell them accurately what they wanted to know about anything? Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is, as I have already said, to create an encyclopaedia that condenses and summarizes existing knowledge that has already been peer reviewed and published, not to collaborate on creating from scratch a political treatise about a television show. Uncle G 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need to cite a source to state an opinion here, nor does anyone else. It is my view which counts here. The idea is to seek consensus not win by playing a trump card? Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The only satisfactory edit as things stand is to delete the article. You assert that a "perfectly satisfactory article can be created". This implies that you know of sources on this subject that can be used to create such an article. So cite them. Merely claiming that this isn't original research and can be rendered neutral, without actually demonstrating that it isn't original research and providing sources to work from, won't cut the mustard any longer. Sources have been requested for five months, and not only have editors not provided them, they have even refused to provide them, one stating that xyr contributions are the "product of some research I had been doing". It is now crunch time. The currently unsubstantiated assertion that this isn't original research now has to be backed up with something concrete within the next few days. Uncle G 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOR. Article doesn't cite a single source; thus it more than likely the research of the editors involved. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOR actually says:'Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.' So, yes, wiki policy specifically expects editors to do research, specifically to collect and collate information from primary sources (i.e. the programs themselves). It is quite plain the primary source is the programs themselves and this is implicit throughout the article. Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the whole policy, in particular the part that says "it is essential that any [...] any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library". Collaboratively creating an analysis of the political stance of a television show, where no such analysis exists outside of Wikipedia is original research, plainly and simply. You have the opportunity to provide evidence that such an analysis exists, which is the only way that you can demonstrate that this is not original research. Merely arguing as you are that that we should include original research in our encyclopaedia isn't persuasive. Uncle G
- I did read the whole policy. then I read it again, and all the talk page, and commented. My conclusion was that the policy had been somewhat subverted into a tool for closing arguments. Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that one of the fundamental policies that tells us what we are actually doing, and (furthermore) not doing, here is a means for closing arguments is not a matter of subversion. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. It misses the pretty obvious point that while references might make an article better, an article with no references is better than no article at all. This is also part of wiki policy. (or it was) The proper criteria for inclusion is accuracy, not whether it has references.Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that one of the fundamental policies that tells us what we are actually doing, and (furthermore) not doing, here is a means for closing arguments is not a matter of subversion. Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the whole policy. then I read it again, and all the talk page, and commented. My conclusion was that the policy had been somewhat subverted into a tool for closing arguments. Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the whole policy, in particular the part that says "it is essential that any [...] any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library". Collaboratively creating an analysis of the political stance of a television show, where no such analysis exists outside of Wikipedia is original research, plainly and simply. You have the opportunity to provide evidence that such an analysis exists, which is the only way that you can demonstrate that this is not original research. Merely arguing as you are that that we should include original research in our encyclopaedia isn't persuasive. Uncle G
- WP:NOR actually says:'Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.' So, yes, wiki policy specifically expects editors to do research, specifically to collect and collate information from primary sources (i.e. the programs themselves). It is quite plain the primary source is the programs themselves and this is implicit throughout the article. Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or perhaps transwiki to wiktionary as a definition of original research :oP Jacqui★ 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOR. The South Park Republican article covers everything this article dose without original research. Seano1 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I contributed somewhat to this article and looking back, it's completely unencyclopedic and inherently NPOV. daleki 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This sort of thing seems inherently POV and OR. *Dan T.* 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is interesting, it is not POV as it shows any political view from either side, and it is not original research because of the number of different editors. The source is the show itself, which is verifyable because of its worldwide popularity Astrokey44 14:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't understand how the number of editors changes the fact that this clearly is OR. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably because a number of people have come to the same view that in fact it is not. Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a lot of people say it isn't OR doesn't make it so. Show me the references! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki supposedly works by consensus, not evidence or precedent Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a lot of people say it isn't OR doesn't make it so. Show me the references! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably because a number of people have come to the same view that in fact it is not. Sandpiper 16:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't understand how the number of editors changes the fact that this clearly is OR. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see OR here. The facts are easily verifiable by watching relevant episodes. Grue 17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't contain facts, it contains conclusions. For example, it states that episode 502 is "Against censorship on TV". This is a conclusion, drawn from watching the television show and inferring a political stance indirectly from the plot and dialogue, not a verifiable fact about the television show. It is an opinion about the television show. It isn't attributed to the person who holds that opinion, and no source for it is provided. There's no evidence that it is anything but a conclusion drawn directly by the Wikipedia editor who first published here. The whole article is like this. Uncle G 18:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you have a point Uncle G, but I do not support an absolutist reliance on references. It becomes an instrument for censorship rather than accuracy. There is a distinction between drawing novel conclusions and stating common conclusions which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs. The latter is not OR by any normal definition, and is not so under the explicit exclusion clause in wiki policy. Nor does the absence of a reference prove something is OR. The logical premis can only be that the presence of a reference proves that it is not.Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no idea what the "common conclusions" are "which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs". There are no sources to tell us. You cannot prove that what is in the article are those conclusions, or even that most people won't in fact come to entirely different conclusions.
If you don't support relying upon references, then you won't be comfortable here at Wikipedia. That is what we do here. I can highly recommend adopting the stance of always insisting upon there being references and good sourcing, though. The articles that you create won't ever come to AFD in the first place (I speak from experience.), and you can even rescue the odd article from deletion here, there, and yon, too. ☺ Uncle G 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you miss the point. Every editor of wiki is one of those average informed men. If you are arguing that editors are unable to make choices about what is common sense to include, then there will be no encyclopedia at all. You make my point for me too, that references are not being used as a tool for improving quality, but for settling arguments about deletion and non-deletion. Wiki has been criticized as lacking an editorial POV. The real problem is not having a POV but making it clear where and how this applies. Wiki insistence on removing POV is its main tool for controlling editors. This may be necessary, (or not) but it also reduces the quality of certain kinds of article. Any kind of article which relies upon an opinion, in fact (politics, biography, economics, literature...). It is also against the spirit of wiki, that anyone can contribute. This may become wikis greatest problem if it continues. Sandpiper 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no idea what the "common conclusions" are "which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs". There are no sources to tell us. You cannot prove that what is in the article are those conclusions, or even that most people won't in fact come to entirely different conclusions.
- I know you have a point Uncle G, but I do not support an absolutist reliance on references. It becomes an instrument for censorship rather than accuracy. There is a distinction between drawing novel conclusions and stating common conclusions which would be drawn by the average(informed) man had he been (in this case) watching the programs. The latter is not OR by any normal definition, and is not so under the explicit exclusion clause in wiki policy. Nor does the absence of a reference prove something is OR. The logical premis can only be that the presence of a reference proves that it is not.Sandpiper 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't contain facts, it contains conclusions. For example, it states that episode 502 is "Against censorship on TV". This is a conclusion, drawn from watching the television show and inferring a political stance indirectly from the plot and dialogue, not a verifiable fact about the television show. It is an opinion about the television show. It isn't attributed to the person who holds that opinion, and no source for it is provided. There's no evidence that it is anything but a conclusion drawn directly by the Wikipedia editor who first published here. The whole article is like this. Uncle G 18:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPOV clearly states that all views of a subject should be fairly represented. This article inherently cannot do that because it tells readers how these episodes should be interpreted. Accurate or not, it violates Wiki policy. PJM 19:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Grue. Stifle 00:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uncle G. Grackle 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nim. and Uncle G. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2005 (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.