Draft talk:Wok Is Dead

Full Article for every episode

Are we sure every episode of S27 needs its own article? Sickofancy is a bare article consisting only of a plot summary and only two reviews. I have a feeling this one will be lacking notable coverage to include as well. Are we sure all episodes from the season are notable enough for an article? We especially shouldn't be making articles before the episode even airs. The rush to make these articles is making me call their existence into question.

Paging User:Alex_21, User:SanAnMan, User:Songwaters and User:TheDoctorWho for discussion as you all have either edited this article or have been active in other Season 27 articles. IzzySwag (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Every other episode of South Park has its own well-sourced article, and this season's episodes should be no exception. For the sake of avoiding further kerfuffles, I won't create articles for episodes before they air anymore, but my assertion still stands. Songwaters (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well yes, they have their own well-sourced articles. Sickofancy and Wok Is Dead both are not well sourced. I'd argue a lot of South Park episodes lack notably to have full articles covering them. Just because there's a pattern of every episode having an article doesn't mean it should be continued if the episode is lacking notablity. IzzySwag (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Correct. It definitely does not require it as soon as it airs. It fails GNG, and articles existing should not be based solely on other examples existing.

  WP:TV has actually had multiple discussions in that just a plot and mininal reviews does not meet notability guidelines. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think articles need to be created before they air, but South Park episodes are generally notable enough that the episodes should exist after they air. I think it's better to have the article created after the episode airs and have editors improve it rather than holding off until a fully detailed version is made. Onyxqk (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The existence of an episode after airing does not equate notability. Kindly read our policies on this topic. This article needs to be moved to the draftspace and expanded there - there is no reason why South Park articles need to ignore article-creation guidelines that all other Wikipedia articles abide by. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Alex here. I definitely feel like South Park has long just ignored GNG because of its status as a very notable show. It definitely does not need an article for every episode and an article as soon as it's aired, especially when there isn't anything there except for a review or two. Sermon on the 'Mount and Got a Nut are both good articles, I think, but they (and especially Sermon) both had significantly more coverage. IzzySwag (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm honestly debating on going through each season and opening AFD's for any article that doesn't meet GNG, and hasn't for years. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You definitely should! I'll give my thoughts on each AFD because I think a solid 90% of SP articles could be deleted. IzzySwag (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I concur that episodes are not automatically notable. Even outside of WT/MOSTV, it's generally understood that notability is not inherited and that applies here as well. I'd stand by my suggestion in my summary, that the article should be worked on in the draft space too. In the way of featured and good articles, "Deer Lady" and "Lux" are examples of what should be expected. At an absolute bare minimum, we should be aiming for something like "My Lucky Day" I would also be willing to echo this opinion on an AFD if necessary. I'm not generally on the South Park side of WP, so a message or ping if it goes there would be appreciated. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Same for me and South Park; I've added a lot more articles related to it to my watchlist now that I've become aware that many of the articles and behaviour around them violate standard practices. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I've contributed a bit to South Park's Wikipedia pages, and I agree that most episodes do not need articles. A good chunk don’t have a lot of information other than some bare bones reviews, and most (especially after around season 10) just include a few facts from the DVD commentaries (which are already very short in length and do not give a lot of information). This is an issue with a lot of animation episode articles sadly, a lot of Simpsons articles aren't comprehensive enough for their own articles, and the same applies to South Park. I think going back and reconsidering which episodes need articles is a good idea, there’s definitely a bigger case for stuff like "Pip" to have an article than something like "Holiday Special". Crystal Drawers (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television to bring in winder community consensus on the notability of these articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think articles need to be created before episodes air, but I haven't yet seen a South Park article that seems like it fails General Notability Guidelines, and the ones that lack full sourcing are generally for brand new episodes/actively being worked on by editors. For instance, for the "Sickofancy" episode, did a quick search and People (one of Wikipedia's reliable sources) did an entire piece on that episode specifically. Not every episode of every TV show receives media coverage from media sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria, but from what I've looked at, every South Park episode has.

For this "Wok Is Dead" episode, the Guardian (another Wikipedia reliable source) just ran an article on the episode specifically. If individual South Park episodes are not covered by third-party sources except in passing, they wouldn't qualify for an article, but each of the South Park episodes under question has been covered (e.g. the Holiday Special article includes that it was covered by Den of Geek, a Wikipedia reliable source for entertainment topics).

Some TV shows (the Office, Dr. Who, etc) do have articles for every episode and I think unless individual episodes no longer get dedicated media coverage South Park should continue in that category. Onyxqk (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That Guardian article is at best a plot recap, the only analysis it brings is explaining the "Donald Trump is fucking Satan" joke for over half of the article. There just isn't a lot to say about the episodes and looking through old SP articles, most of them contain a barren article with a short lead, an overly long plot summary that explains every joke in the episode, two reviews (or brief mentions in shitty listicles), and nothing else. If they truly deserve to stay, then they can go through an AFD to prove that. IzzySwag (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Mentioned in other replies but will mention here as well, an alternative to immediately putting them through an AFD would be to mark ways the article can be improved. If specific sections of an article need to be expanded, or if the article is at risk of being a stub, those tags could be put on it rather than deleting the article. Onyxqk (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I get your logic there, but currently running shows like Doctor Who just get much more coverage on behind the scenes info than South Park episodes, especially since we don’t get DVD commentaries anymore. This doesn’t mean South Park is the only offender to this, a lot of shows have articles for every episode when maybe they shouldn’t. Every episode is bound to get a few reviews, having an article up just because it gets a few reviews basically makes the articles places for people to go and see reviews for the episode when they’re supposed to be more than that. I think maybe the best way to do this would be to wait until the season finishes and make articles for the episodes that receive significant enough coverage to warrant articles similar in caliber to Sermon on the 'Mount. I’d assume an episode like "Wok is Dead" will probably be given a lot of coverage, but it’s probably best to wait until the season finishes to see like I said. Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

A plot summary and a reception section does not an article make - a few reviews does not guarantee notability. That is the consensus of WP:TV. Look at the early Season 1 articles for South Park - notice their substantive sections and detailed sourcing. The above replies are also correct in that secondary source plot summarise are not reviews, they're plot recaps. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I know I've said it elsewhere but I'll reiterate it here: by WP:GNG (superseding whatever local consensus may or may not exist at WP:TV), episode reviews are perfectly reasonable for meeting notability guidelines (and yes, most reviews will recap the episode – that doesn't make the reviews "recaps"). The overwhelming majority of TV episodes are not reviewed in any capacity by reliable sources, so having even a few episode reviews is significant. There could be an argument for merging to a season article for non-GNG reasons, but I feel it's better to cover reception in episode-level articles when possible so we don't end up with a mess trying to synthesize episode reviews into a coherent season-level reception section. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

GNG is a notability guideline, while LOCALCONSENSUS still falls under the consensus policy. Is there a quote from GNG that supports this move? It is the accepted standard that a few reviews do not support the splitting off episode articles, no matter personal opinions on the matter. You can read further details on the matter at MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television) - these are MOS that all television articles abide by, not just a "local" consensus, and no argument has been presented as to why South Park should be the exception to this. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

GNG bases notability on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Reviews from reliable sources meet that threshold, in my opinion. Wikipedia:Article splitting (television) is an essay, and MOS:TVSPLIT just copies that essay; I think the broader project-wide GNG guideline is more reflective of community standards than a TV MOS guideline based on an essay.

My biggest frustration, and the reason why I commented, is asserting that TVSPLIT fully represents the community's opinion. You're more than welcome to argue that an episode article should be merged, but there's not some overwhelming community consensus for that stance. For instance, this AfD from last week led to a keep based on coverage from reviews; that doesn't align with TVSPLIT being some widely-followed consensus. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Significant coverage, correct. A few reviews does not indicate significant coverage, not does it explain, again, why South Park should be the exception to every other television article. Being an essay is irrelevantl you yourself quote essays and expect compliance. Further (wow) - we do not keep content based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; that argument is textbook OSE. Regardless, you do not have the consensus to support the mass creation of stub-level articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

All I was trying to say is that there are different views on what makes for significant coverage and that the South Park episodes may meet some of those views – that's all. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Part of this discussion is a proposal to submit a large number of existing articles for deletion (a number mentioned elsewhere in this thread was 90% of South Park articles). I think regardless of what the consensus ends up being on creating new South Park articles before or shortly after airing, the existing articles should not be nominated for deletion in large numbers, especially if the justification for doing so is based on essays rather than GNG. I checked a few of the old episode articles at random and the few I checked received 1,000+ page views in the last 30 days. People are reading those articles and if they need to be improved they should be marked for improvement rather than deletion. Onyxqk (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Even though I agree a lot of these articles may deserve to be kept, page views are definitely not the reason to do so. Notability is based on verifiability and reliable sources, not popularity or page views. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Generally, we do go by the MOS even if it based off of an essay. The MOS is the collection of the community's ideas on how to build a good article. That article in the AFD had more significant coverage because it won a notable award. 99% of South Park episodes will not have won as notable an award, if any. IzzySwag (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Lol at me posting a comment exactly the same as yours right at the same time XD great minds think alike Crystal Drawers (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that episodes that are only plot and reviews don't meet the minimum for a stand-alone article for various reasons, but I had to comment on this: Generally, we do go by the MOS even if it based off of an essay. The MoS should never be based on an essay and if that is snuck in somewhere it should be removed. Essay are meaningless and represent opinions of a small group of editors only. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, original nominator of the aforementioned AfD here. Out of the three keeps, two of them (one being a weak keep) mentioned that the epsiode winning an award is a big part of what makes it notable. Not every South Park episode has won an award, the AfD is irrelevant and was kept on grounds that most South Park articles can’t meet. This isn’t to say that only episodes that win awards deserve articles, that’s just the reason why that stub article was decided to be kept Crystal Drawers (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Most South Park articles are also not in good shape. I’ve gone through a few and noticed a concerning amount of articles that only cite a single source or lack a reception and/or production section. If someone wants, they can go through the audio commentaries to dig up as many facts as possible to add to each article, which would certainly make the articles more notable, but there’s just too many episodes for that to be reasonable. I still believe the best option is to go through each article and determine which would be better suited as redirects. I love South Park with all my heart, and the fans on Wikipedia are obviously doing a very good job keeping the articles up to quality, but there’s no denying that a good amount are stubs at best. Crystal Drawers (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

For articles that are considered to potentially be stubs, wouldn't it make sense to mark them as stubs rather than submitting them for deletion? Marking them as stubs gives the chance for editors to improve the sourcing of the articles, rather than the other scenario being discussed of marking a large number of existing articles for deletion. Onyxqk (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, but would marking them as stubs incentivize editors to fix the articles? I don’t really think so personally, maybe there could be a drive in the South Park wiki project to go through each article and make them higher quality? That could be a fun way of doing it. The issue is the sheer amount of stub-like SP episode articles Crystal Drawers (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Marking articles that are decades old as stubs is going to do nothing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

See, a great example here is "Another Rick Up My Sleeve". It is an episode of Peacemaker that had its article created upon its release. But note the extensiveness of the article, substantive production and much-expanded reception. This is a good example of a newly-aired and newly-created episode. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

KEEP Full article for every episode for which there are secondary sources.

I've been editing/creating Wikpedia articles on South Park articles for a decade or more, and it seems that wee've had this discussion before, both as it pertains to SP episode articles, Notability is clearly determined by the presence of reliable, secondary sources in an article. If such sources are in an article, then it stays, period, irrespective of whether its Reception section is "extensive," or a Production section. Keep in mind also that every article is a constant work in progress, and someone may add a production section or more reviews to an article in the future, perhaps by the WP critics who think that they should have those things. But not having them is not grounds for WP to not keep such articles. Nightscream (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel the concensus here is to go through the articles and do AFDs for ones that seem underdeveloped. The hope that decades old articles will be improved someday maybe isn't enough to keep them around if all they have are a plot section and one or two reviews. Just doesn't make sense. IzzySwag (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention that some episodes also lack a reception section, as well. I think the AfD is the best idea, as well Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"Keep because other articles exist" is a poor argument; "it stays, period" is such an OWN quote. AFD is the very clear consensus, and I think we should start organizing these soon. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to get started! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know where to begin (or even really how to start an AfD), so, let me know how I can help/where to begin. IzzySwag (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

What season should we start the AfDs with? Season 1 is all good articles so I think that’s out of the picture. The majority of season 2 articles aren’t holding up too well, so I think that could be a good start Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with Season 2, making a list of all articles that require AFD attention, and mass-nominating them per season. Wait for a season's worth to close, then proceed with the next season. It'll take some time, but it'll improve the quality of Wikipedia eventually. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is not a "clear consensus" around AFDs being the preferred path - around 3 or so editors in the discussion are for AFDs, around 3 or so editors appear to be against. That is not a consensus around submitting a large number of existing articles for deletion. Onyxqk (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A general agreement. What I can tell you is that there isn't a consensus that any article "stays, period, irrespective" of any element, and AFD's will be proceeding presently. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, consensus isn't done via a vote. And even if it was, in this situation, we are opening additional places to discuss the deletion of these articles, not to delete them here. Please feel free to voice your thoughts on the AFD pages! That's where the consensus reached will actually matter. IzzySwag (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I fear that there's also a common misconception that because something is notable, it automatically deserves its own article. This isn't inherently true. MOS:TVSPLIT and WP:SPINOUT still apply here. If an episode is supposedly notable only because it has 3 well-sourced reviews, but no information on production, those reviews may be better summarized in a season article. Especially in later seasons where seasons are only 6-10 episodes long, and some may still qualify for their own article, it's unlikely splitting guidelines are met. WP:HASTE (part of SPINOUT) specifically says "Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles", in my opinion there's no need for "several shorter articles" when one can handle it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Coming in late to echo Nightscream and say that, as someone who has seriously expanded a lot of SP episodes over the years (particularly the early seasons) the episodes certainly vary in their reporting in secondary sources; I mean, each episode in Season 13 is featured as a Good Article! The articles on this cite are living things. Just because every previous episode does not mean future episodes have to have an article. But they are a good indicator that reliable secondary sources will continue to be published about them. However, I do agree that, unless an unaired article becomes notable for some reason ahead of time, we should generally not create articles until the episode has aired and there are secondary sources to cite. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If Season 13's articles are featured as GA's, then good on them! However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because they exist, does not provide any form of basis that other articles should exist on the base of several websites that are effectively just plot summary recaps. A few reviews do not an article make. If episodes vary in their reporting in secondary sources, then articles with a far lower variation in reporting do not require an article - not everything needs an article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ready to be published?

To me, this article looks ready to be published. It's significantly better quality than the Sickofancy article. ~2025-33883-17 (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd personally still decline this if it came across my radar at AFC. South Park season 27 isn't merely long enough to warrant a split at this time and any relevant information could easily be merged into there. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd personally draftify Sickofancy too. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)