Deletion of South Park credits

Comment: This just needs to be cleaned up and linked South Park in  style; the South Park article is large enough to merit it. Compare this coverage to Family Guy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: merge the two articles together. Per tqbf, this is completely acceptable under . I don't want the South Park mainpage overlaoded with details about the opening sequence. minimise cruft yes, but this article could be cruft-free and standalone
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: Is there a fan wiki for South Park?  Maybe this can go there.  Just not here, for the problems of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: the two articles into one. |Notability guidelines do not require ''exclusive'' coverage of a subject, and just because there are no news stories or books entitled "South Park's Opening Credits" does not mean the subject is not notable. Even one-sentence mentions in reliable sources can contribute to significant coverage if a significant number of unique one-sentence mentions with different perspectives on the subject can be collected into a comprehensive article about the subject. But in addition a large amount of mentions in news stories, a book about the Simpsons (''http://books.google.com/books?id=n6vZJnxK1XYC&pg=PA213&dq=%22south+park%22+%22opening+credits%22&sig=OkwreeUyB844xjlpHz6T19DTMYc#PPA213,M1 Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture'') actually devotes a ''paragraph'' to the South Park opening credits. One of Wikipedia's biggests strengths is being able to collect information from a disparate variety of sources into comprehensive coverage of a huge variety of topics. Why does it feel like there are forces trying to misuse policies and guidelines in order to reduce Wikipedia to a clone of Encyclopedia Britannica or Microsoft Encarta
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)