Talk:South Park (Not Suitable for Children)

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South Park task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Deprecated sources

Deprecated sources should not be used in Wikipedia for almost any reason whatsoever. You need a justification strong enough that not including it would be an WP:NPOV violation. WP:RSOPINION presumes a reliable source - saying "it's an opinion" cannot override a broad general RFC to deprecate the source.

A review in a deprecated source is profoundly unlikely to pass such a bar, and certainly not just by saying "RSOPINION".

If there is a serious claim of a serious reason for using such sourcing despite its deprecation, it needs to be stated. A talk page WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may not be safe, and it would probably need a convincing argument on WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard There is absolutely nothing in WP:RS or WP:RSOPINION that states that opinions need to presume a reliable source. In fact, just the opposite is true -- the section is under the heading of "Reliability in specific contexts" and directly states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." - SanAnMan (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you really want to argue that a review in the Daily Caller is so important as to override deprecation, you need to take it to RSN. Deprecated sources, having been found to be the most unreliable sources known to Wikipedia, prima facie fail WP:UNDUE - which is policy. You can't try to form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by making spurious justifications in edit summaries or local talk pages or spurious threats on a user talk page - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Gerard's interpretation. You need to have an exceptional consensus-driven reason to include a deprecated source in an article. Including an opinion/critique in an article about a cartoon hardly meets the bar for inclusion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard You have had this exact argument before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_289#Daily_Mail_and_RSOPINION and were explained even then that (direct quotes from the discussion) "Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media". - SanAnMan (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the resolution in that discussion was that I was correct. You did read down to the bottom before linking it? - David Gerard (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't sneak the deprecated source in using a tweet either. (WP:RSPTWITTER) Why are you so wedded to this particular review? - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]