Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Wars
- 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, consensus is clear to keep this article but divided between either making this page a disambiguation page or merging and redirecting the other two pages to this one. Neither of these options require deletion and discussion should continue to reach a consensus on what to do. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is completely redundant as it just duplicates the content of Cartoon Wars Part I and Cartoon Wars Part II merging them into one article. Section by section it can be seen that everything present in the article is present somewhere else.
- Cartoon Wars#Part I --> Cartoon Wars Part I#Plot
- Cartoon Wars#Part II --> Cartoon Wars Part II#Plot
- Cartoon Wars#Real-life censorship controversy --> Cartoon Wars Part II#Real-life censorship controversy
- Cartoon Wars#Cultural References --> Cartoon Wars Part II#References to pop culture
- Cartoon Wars#Episodes criticism and praise --> Cartoon Wars Part II#Episode criticism and praise
There is an argument that the single page is more appropriate than the two individual pages however other South Park episodes in multipart arcs have there own pages, see Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II, Imaginationland Episode III, Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut, Cartman's Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut, Go God Go, Go God Go XII, Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? and Probably (South Park) as some examples. There was a discussion on merging the pages here but it seems to have petered out about a month ago. In the absence of any consensus to merge it seems silly to have all three articles. Guest9999 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but change to a disambiguation page and add any additional information into the other two articles - this covers two episodes, but the Who Shot Mr. Burns? episodes of The Simpsons have two parts : Part 1 / Part 2 , with a disambiguation at Who Shot Mr. Burns?/ Jake the Editor Man (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, but delete the two seperate articles and keep the merged one. I've argued this continually on the talk pages for the original articles. I think it makes much more sense to have one article for a two-part episode than having two articles with the exact same information except for the plot description. I've also argued this for Go God Go/Go God Go XII and Imaginationland/Imaginationland Episode II/Imaginationland Episode III.--Swellman (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is about the worst I've ever seen on wikipedia. The entire plot summary is unsourced and seems to be written by one person. In addition, it's entirely their opinion, not actual fact. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to disambiguation per the Who Shot Mr. Burns? page. The disambiguation options would be the South Park episodes Cartoon Wars Part I and Cartoon Wars Part II as well as the real-world Mohammad cartoons controversy (Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlp1991 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two reasonable solutions to this problem: keep this article and redirect the Parts I & II articles to this one; or keep the Part I and Part II articles and make this page a disambiguation. Neither of these solutions require AfD; and in fact duplicate or redundant information is never a valid reason for deletion—the deletion policy states specifically that duplicate information can be merged and redirected without AfD. If you can't get consensus for which way the redirects should go on the respective talk pages or appropriate WikiProject, well then that's what Requests for comments is for. DHowell (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; merge and redirect the other two into this one, ideally. Makes much more sense in one article, especially given the controversy. Epthorn (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (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.