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 delete. Assessed consensus was for deletion, in addition there was also the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags, which is similar in nature. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons billboard gags[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable trivia. No coverage in reliable secondary sources, unlike List of The Simpsons couch gags. The leftorium 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to deletion a month down the line when the article is in its final state. Criminy, I created the stub fifteen minutes ago. What's the rush? I'm certainly not going to waste time working on it until this is resolved. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags. THF (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that AfD has to do with this? The couch gags are an iconic part of the show, the billboard gags aren't. The leftorium 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In your opinion. People can read the reasoning in that AFD, and decide for themselves whether the arguments there are applicable here. THF (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, that makes sense. Why would one gag be less valid than another? Billboard, Bart writing something on chalkboard, and couch gag. I don't see why all three wouldn't be equally valid. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The couch gags have existed since the show was created twenty years ago. The billboard gags were introduced in February 2009. The leftorium 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What's your point? Its part of a notable show, and its there to stay, not just a one time thing. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:SBST states: "Notability is not predictable: A topic that does not meet the general notability guideline at one time may do so later. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future." The leftorium 15:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AFD ends in a week, and by that time the missing information should be filled in. Remember, AFD is for judging whether the article should exist, not judging it in its current stage. The other AFD mentioned stated that the cough gag article had five thousand hits a month. Having articles on Wikipedia people actually want to come here and read, is a good thing. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the information is filled in. That's not why I nominated the article for deletion. The so called "billboard gag" concept hasn't received coverage in reliable sources. The leftorium 15:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references to two major newspapers, one doing an article on the addition of the billboard to the iconic Simpson's opening, and another commenting on a specific Billboard. Those were the first two links I clicked on after a Google news search revealed them among many others. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is about the new opening sequence, not the billboard gags. The second is a one sentence mention. That's hardly significant coverage. The leftorium 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much could you write about one sentence? Its the same amount of coverage the couch gags get. Dream Focus 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that two sources are not enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria. The leftorium 16:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? List of The Simpsons couch gags only has two references. I've been in plenty of AFDs, and you never need more than two. Dream Focus 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the couch gag article only has two secondary sources in it. However, far more sources do exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags), they just haven't been added to the article. Two newspaper articles that barely mention the billboards are not enough. The leftorium 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google search shows plenty of news coverage of the billboard, even referring to it as iconic. Adding references to the article now. Dream Focus 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time to move this one to The Simpsons wiki. Although Wikipedia was top-heavy on articles about The Simpsons in its early days, even to the point that serious articles would be tainted with moronic references to the classic television show, it isn't 2005 anymore. This is, essentially, a list of jokes. Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is just as notable as the couch gag list, and editor has provided three secondary sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for badgering, but WP:GNG says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". These three sources contain one-sentence mentions of the billboards. The leftorium 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for that AFD nomination of the couch gags article (which was all but SNOW kept the last time it was nominated), as you have yet to identify any difference between the two, since it currently has fewer sources of no more moment than the billboard sources. Why are you taking this so personally that you've had to make ten comments on this AFD when the article isn't even six hours old? THF (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the couch gag concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources ([1], for example), the billboard concept hasn't. But it doesn't matter if the couch gags article exists or not. The leftorium 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sole example of a difference is that a primary source mentions the couch gag? How does that confer notability? And if it does, do you really doubt that that same primary source won't also document the billboard gag? But more importantly, this isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is WP:THESAMESTUFFEXISTS and was just !voted on three months ago. THF (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I provided are primary sources. If you still doubt the couch gags are more notable, there's additional sources here and here (ignore the TV.com results). This kind of coverage does not exist for the billboard gags. The leftorium 21:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: first update to Simpsons opening in 20 years is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The change to the credits receives more than enough coverage in The Simpsons opening sequence, and this article is not about the change, it's a list of one-liners that appear for all of two seconds. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep there's plenty of coverage in reliable secondary news sources, and books also. ¨¨ victor falk 08:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- No, none of those sources are about the billboard gags. They are about the chalkboard gags. The leftorium 09:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.

I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.¨¨ victor falk 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mandsford. 2005 called, it wants its Wikipedia back. This whole article violates WP:NOR policy, by the way. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:NOR violation? THF (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a book on the market that has tonight's billboard gag on it, it's not original research. Most of these are based on someone watching TV at home and "Hey, where are you going, The Simpsons is coming on..." "I've got to get to edit a Wikipedia article before anyone else does!" Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it appeared on the show is not a OR violation. It's simply a primary source that can be verified by anyone watching the episode in question. Most, if not all, plot details on fictional subjects are from primary sources and that is within policy - it would only be a WP:NOR violation if the article contained conclusions derived from those primary sources - which there aren't. This article is possibly about a non-notable subject but it's not original research. Regards So Why 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable, pointless trivia list from the series. If the best that can be said is that TV.com, a user-edited site, is "listing" it with the episode summaries, that's not notability nor relevance. Agree with JBsupreme, way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series. Transwiki to the Simpsons wiki for the fans. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Simpson's opening scene article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (in that case, it was because of copyright issues). Users keep pointing to the list of couch gags, but there is a huge difference. For starters, it's been around 20 years longer, and has received coverage in tonnes of sources, which makes it a lot more notable. Yes, the billboard gags are part of an iconic show, but notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is repeating a bunch of jokes from the show not an obvious WP:COPYVIO? Delete already. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. JBsupreme (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Left, as he says, this isn't nearly as notable as the couch gags. CTJF83 chat 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an iconic part of the show. Too new to be in the class with the counch gags. At this point, it's fan trivia.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep. Its a developing iconic gag within the longest running prime time TV series. The list already self- demonstrates its notability. It has been going on for two seasons and there is no apparent end to the gag. Even by going on so long, it is a significant footnote and worthy of an article.Trackinfo (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if its part of the "longest running prime time TV series". Notability is not inherited, and no sources cover this topic in detail. Articles shouldn't be written on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future either. The leftorium 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mandsford. Minima c94 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because notability is not inherited. Reyk _YO! 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Billboard's notability is not directly inherited. Not wanting to bring the cough gags to the discussion (but it's rather inevitable), but the billboards are, since they were introduced, an integral part of the opening sequence. True, the couch gags have featured in (nearly) every episode for more than 20 years, but that does not defeat the fact that the billboards have been there for more than a season, since the move to HD (the episodes that did not feature on can be compared to repeated couch gags).
Furthermore (and more blantatly), the article was created shortly ago (fastest afd I've ever seen, really) and flagged for rescue.
If the consensus determines deletion, very well, but it is not necessary to make it into a stillbirth... BrickBreak (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly are the billboard gags "an integral part of the opening sequence"? They are on screen for a few seconds and it never changes (unlike the couch gag, which can be anywhere from a few seconds to a minute and a half), and they don't even occupy the entire screen, just a portion of it (unlike the chalkboard gag). I don't see how it is any more notable or integral than any of the other variables in the credits like Lisa's sax solo, Ralph's one-liner, what flies across the screen, etc. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:27, 7 February 2010 (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.