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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons couch gags[edit]

List of The Simpsons couch gags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

WP:ILIKEIT, but Non-notable trivia; notability is not inherited. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; to the extent that it is mentioned, there are questions of WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. 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. 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. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags. THF (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An encyclopedia should be for facts about a topic, not for lists like this. Borock 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The amount of Simpsons trivia on here is ridiculous, so delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iconic part of the show and mentioned in several books CTJF83 chat 04:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iconic part of a notable long running show, mentioned in many newspapers and books. Dream Focus 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (a) Nothing has changed since the last AfD resulted in "keep". (b) These are an iconic and individually notable institution, recognisable by people who have never watched an episode of the Simpsons. The massive and longstanding cultural impact of The Simpsons makes separate articles for its more well-known subfacets justified. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the proposition that people who have never watched an episode of the Simpsons recognize the concept of a couch gag? THF (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first barrier is finding people who've never watched an episode of the Simpsons, I guess. The level of cultural saturation and the intense familiarity that such a wide demographic has with the show is one of the reasons I'm arguing that sub-aspects like this deserve coverage. A Google search for "Couch Gag" returns about 156,000 hits, more than any Simpsons episode title I could think of. A search for "Couch Gag -Simpsons" returns a wide and broad usage of the phrase, including using it as slang for "a running joke", its use as a title for blogs and colums related to television, and news coverage of particular couch gags indepdent of their episodes (particularly the one featuring an iPhone). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that couch gags are an iconic part of the show. This fact should be given in the main Simpsons article. No need to list them, in fact it is better to not list them and let people see them firsthand as they watch the shows. Borock (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't just that they're notable, it's that they're independently notable, in much the same way as Bart Simpson has a life and presence beyond the show. You can know of and be interested in these gags without necessarily being interested in the show. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Secondary sourcing indicates the schtick is notable. List criteria are explicit and nothing is amiss per WP:CLN. As noted above, nothing has changed since the first AfD, although the nominator's honesty in attempting to "balance" Wikipedia coverage through deletion is appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep secondary sources show this is notable. Articles like this is what makes wikipedia wonderful. Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merging this into some other article is not feasible due to the large size already. I would lean towards keep, but I strongly suggest finding a review reference for the "Gag" column, as now, any random user can come and change an entry and there is no sensible way to verify it other than watch the episode. Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • see the talk page for references (I can't edit the main List of The Simpsons couch gags page) the last book I added as a reference has dozens of the gags, maybe all of them. Okip (formerly Ikip) 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes the show is notable, yes the couch gag is a popular element of the show. I doubt the sources that everyone claims there are for this element of the show really cover it in detail. That is the problem this intricate amount of detail to one element of the show is non-encyclopedic. A brief overview of thew couch gag in the main Simpsons article is all that is required. I'm sure we also have articles for every single episode and these could easily be listed there. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Ridernyc (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. The amount of Simpsons fancruft on here is amazingly large. The whole body of work on The Simpsons on here needs a serious look and needs to be cleaned up and reorganized. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOFIXIT! Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a good start. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you provide a clear list of stuff you feel needs to "be cleaned up and reorganized" so that we at WP:DOH can go and do that? Gran² 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable part of the show that has secondary sources. I bet a lifetime supply of Duff that this will close with no-consensus (default to keep). Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see how deleting this will improve Wikipedia. Net benefit to keep IMO. -- œ^™ 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would certainly agree that the notion of the Simpsons couch gag itself is a notable part of American pop culture - but a list of individual Simpsons couch gags is unbelievably pedantic and trivial. Sources can confirm that the gags exist, but very little more, and mere existance does not warrant inclusion. "List of The Simpsons couch gags" is no more fit for inclusion than List of Puns Made by Groucho Marx in the Marx Brothers' Movies (or, to extend it a bit: List of Jumpsuit Colors Worn By Mystery Science Theater 3000 Hosts, or List of Grateful Dead Concerts With Dark Star In the Setlist). This is something that would be a much better fit on a Simpsons wiki. Badger Drink (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The first makes a lot of sense and I'd be all for keeping it, if it existed. --Cyclopia^talk 14:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But not the second or the third? Badger Drink (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what Mystery Science Theater 3000 is, nor I am a Grateful Dead listener, so I am not able to judge. --Cyclopia^talk 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only there were some sort of encyclopedia where you could look things up :( Anyway, I guess I can't speak for everyone, but I can still judge whether or not List of micro-organisms found in Fernando's feces is suitable for inclusion without eating a barn full of bull shit. Badger Drink (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I fail to see how removing the article would make Wikipedia a better place. While keeping it, under due reserves, adds (IMHO) real value to the web. Talgalili (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Okip and DustFormWords. Notablity aside, this is an excellent, even if amusing, example of how Wikipedia is great in organizing and collecting content that would be otherwise extremly difficult and taedious to collect individually. --Cyclopia^talk 13:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article was recently kept a few months back, so I don't see how consensus changed so rapidly. The theory that Wikipedia is too big for its britches now to have this article is silly. Unless we want to run off even more editors? That's the tenor of the nomination. Its a notable component of a highly popular TV show, organized in a fashion to allow ease of access to readers, so I propose it be kept.--Milowent (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Superfluous Keep Are we going to nominate this one every three months? As others have pointed out, the show's ever-changing opening sequence is a part of pop culture; I can't think of any programs where people look forward to watching the first minute (or, for that matter, watch only the first minute before changing the channel). Granted, the nominator's comments are eerily similar to some that I have made myself, but I think we've come a long way in reducing the Simpsons' presence in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, there is a difference between removing Simpsons references from serious-articles, and removing all Simpsons' articles entirely, and I see no reason to delete this one. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're of the opinion that notability is inherited? Badger Drink (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It seems THF nominated this article for deletion because of the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags (his nomination is almost entirely made up of comments taken from that AfD). The main difference between these two lists is that the couch gags have actually received significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2] (ignore TV.com), [3], [4], [5], etc. This is something the billboard gags lack. Theleftorium 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see significant coverage of The Simpsons, not coverage of the couch gag. Ridernyc (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating my opinion as to why I think the couch gags are more notable than the billboard gags. It's not necessarily enough coverage for the couch gags to have their own article though. I'm a member of WP:DOH and like Scorpion said below, I wouldn't exactly miss the page. Theleftorium 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Honestly, I wouldn't miss this page. However, this is clearly a bad faith WP:POINT nomination from THF because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags (which, by the way, he was vehemently opposed to deleting). In fact, he copied a quote directly from the billboard afd "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" made by a different user [6], which I find humorous because he didn't seem to care about that when the afd was for an article he created. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My position hasn't changed. My position in both AFDs is that List of The Simpsons billboard gags and List of The Simpsons couch gags should be treated identically. A one-paragraph note in a Wired blog or an article on an AOL blog doesn't make the couch gag cross the line; the billboard gags article had equivalent sourcing. THF (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should they be treated exactly the same? Couch gags been around for 20 years and take up a much greater amount of time than the billboards, which have been around a season and appear for a few seconds. That's like saying Ned Flanders doesn't deserve a page because the Crazy Cat Lady doesn't have one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The jokes have established notability in their own right. Martin451 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. The previous reasons still hold.SPNic (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and ITEXISTS? Badger Drink (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's covered in reliable sources. Did you not see the first discussion?SPNic (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources amount to "it exists", with no meaningful commentary. Did you not read my !vote? Badger Drink (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion hitting my watchlist a few times today with your responses. So, doing a google news search for simpsons couch gags, I was shocked at the number of references to it. The world may be going the down the toilet, but this is a damn notable toilet.--Milowent (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. This article is why Wikipedia exists. Wikipedia should not be a mirror image of Encyclopædia Britannica, Wikipedia is SO much better than EB !!!!!. Seth Whales (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unlike the chalkboard gags and the billboard gags, the couch gags are not only an iconic part of the show but have been covered extensively in reliable secondary sources. They meet the notability requirements and as such the article can be kept. Arguing that it's "not 2005 anymore" is faulty since the last "keep" closure was only three months ago. Consensus has changed in parts since 2005 but we still don't delete notable, reliable sourced material just because it was created 5 years ago. Reasons like "trivia", "fancruft" etc. might sound like good reasons to those favoring deletion but they are not policy based. Regards SoWhy 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - very notable element of pop culture as evidence by the 400+ reliable source mentions on just the first of many possible search phrases. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article fulfilles WP:V, WP:RS and per WP:NOTAGAIN. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an iconic part of a notable show, per WP:RS. Verbal chat 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question For whom are Simpsons related articles written, fans or non-fans who want to learn about the show? If fans then this article is fine. If non-fans then this article tells them almost nothing and potentially spoils their fun in seeing the gags for the first time. Borock (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see that at least one editor has compared the couch gags to the billboard gags - in all honesty, I have no idea what the billboard gags are, and thought the term might refer to the chalkboard gags (a little research showed me that it did not, but for me at least, the two gags are not equally well known). --Badger151 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 2nd Comment my recollection is that, in reruns, the chalkboard gags are cut, while the couch gags are retained, perhaps indicating that the shows' producers believe that the couch gags are more important than the chalkboard gags.--Badger151 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep we shouldn't be arguing this, but I must defend this list lest some (expletive deleted) wants to seriously get rid of this. How did the new "Billboard Gags" get deleted? Do you get your jollies deleting information that other people find useful? This stuff deserves to be available and there is no better place for people to look for it than wikipedia. Maybe its not intellectual, but removing popular information like this devalues the entire site.Trackinfo (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% that the Simpsons is an important show, perhaps one of the most of all time, and an important cultural influence. However a better place for this list would be a fan site for the show. The glory of the Simpsons would be better served if Wikipedia was reserved for articles on it that would be of interest to non-fans. That way they could find out about the show and perhaps watch it and become fans.Borock (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I had noted at the last AFD, there are several books and academic papers discussing couch gags:
  • Turner, Chris (2005). Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation. New York: Da Capo Press
  • Popular culture and critical pedagogy: reading, constructing, connecting by Toby Daspit, John A. Weaver
  • ‘‘Are We There Yet?’’: Searching for Springfield and The Simpsons’ Rhetoric of Omnitopia, by Andrew Wood & Anne Marie Todd, Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 22, No. 3, August 2005
  • The small screen: how television equips us to live in the information age by Brian L. Ott
  • Simpsonology: There's a Little Bit of Springfield in All of Us by Tim Delaney

While it is disappointing that no one has taken the initiative yet to include these to expand the article lede and make the article more encyclopedic, I realize that we are all volunteers here, and the sources establish the notability of the subject. Abecedare (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In no way do these sources justify the article up for deletion. They justify mention of the couch gag itself, but to claim that this justifies a pedantic list of every couch gag is ridiculous. Does The Deadhead's Taping Compendium (Amazon.com link) justify including List of Grateful Dead setlists? Badger Drink (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To argue that specific example (Grateful Dead setlists); no, not by itself. The requirement at WP:N is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Assuming that the book you list gives significant coverage to the topic of setlists, then yes, pair it up with another similar reliable, independent source, and you've established notability for your setlists article. A quick glance over WP:NOTPAPER and WP:Article size might be educational. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 12 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.