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 no consensus. And frankly, I don't know if there will be one any time soon. For those who haven't all ready looked, there's an interesting discussion over at the WP:FICT talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (5th nomination)[edit]

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AFD listings:

May 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons

July 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons

August 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (third nomination)

October 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (fourth nomination)

• This is basically a long example of listcruft, and although it appears to be well-referenced, all the sources are either first-party or taken from IMDb trivia. It seems like the article still exists merely because a lot of users like it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since when are the Washington Post or IGN "first-party or taken from IMDb trivia"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed the nom, so the edit, talk etc aren't in the header. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Only one of the references is IMDB and first-party sources are perfectly acceptable (just not in establishing notability). The topic characters from the Simpsons is already proven notable. As for the comment: "It seems like the article still exists merely because a lot of users like it." Based on the fact you call it listcruft, I don't think I'd be far of if I said you don't like it (which is an equally bad line thinking).- Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone should look into this by the way, either someone misnumbered these or we're missing the true second nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't dislike it as a subject; I just don't think it's notable in itself per Wikipedia guidelines. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Simpsons would obviously become too large if this was included, so I see this as a subarticle which do not need notability for themselves, they're really part of the other article. -0 Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for three personal-judgement reasons: (1) One-time characters are nearly always nonnotable and have no connection to each other, so a group listing seems like listing for the sake of listing (some would call it "cruft"). (2) The few characters who are actually memorable/notable can be fully covered (with more context) in the The Simpsons episode articles, which don't seem to go away in the near future. (3) This list has strong similarities with a list of episodes, so why can't the characters be mentioned in the LoE/season pages in the first place (unless they are too nonnotable for the plot summary, but then why mention them on wikipedia anyway?). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think that every show would deserve to have a list like this, but I believe that The Simpsons is unique. 24 Emmies, longest running sitcom ever, longest running animated series ever, (equal) longest running primetime series ever... A one-time character in The Simpsons is notable enough for wikipedia. I believe that wikipedia is made more useful, more interesting, and more relevant by including popular culture. We have obscure mathematical theories that hardly anyone understands, and musical works by famous composers that are rarely played. I believe that if these things are considered 'notable', then popular culture articles like this are equally notable if not more so. Don't look down on this article because it's about a cartoon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, Last of the Summer Wine is the longest running sitcom. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One time characters are not notable. McWomble (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really an unfair generalization. There are quite a few sources out there to prove the notability for characters such as Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sgeureka. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep* This section holds valuable information and has clearly taken a lot of research and confirmation. Everybody who has written here has a reason to find it, and so it has worth. Myself i was looking for the Parody Lucius Sweet is on. This page provided me with that information. Wiki is after all, there to give answers to questions. The page in question answered my question and is therefore doing its job as a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.120.31 (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would also be able to easily find that character if the redirect of Lucius Sweet was changed from here to the correct episode. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, quite a few of these characters are notable. Rather than mentioning them all at List of characters in The Simpsons (which would then become a mess), we have an individual page here. Only three things in life are certain: Death, taxes and the annual afd for this page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scorpion. —TheLeftorium 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Listcruft is an essay with no standing. And if some editors like this article, that's a good thing, not a problem. So, no policy reason to delete has been presented. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sgeureka says it for me. Springnuts (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one of the best examples of how to list a minor topic on Wikipedia. There's no rambling, over-detailing or OR and the entries in the list get straight to the point. Each of the characters are significant (within the programme) as they have an influence on the plot of the episode so there's a clear inclusion criteria set at a reasonable level. A lot of the parts are played by celebrities so it would be possible to dig up a reference for those. The topic passes the GNG and V. There's simply no reason to remove this information. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A single one-off character may not be notable enough for their own article in most cases, but a compilation of such which demonstrates a range of characters as memorable as many of the main characters, often voiced by celebrities, seems pretty notable to me. A fifth nomination using the dreadful "listcruft" argument, which then suggests it was kept four times because people "liked it", is not exactly grounded in firm policy, and in my opinion seems quite hypocritical. --Canley (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many notable characters CTJF83Talk 00:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I cannot find a reason in WP:NOT or in the deletion policy in that matter to delete. The list is, for the most part, verifiable and contains summary (i.e. not excessive) material. MuZemike (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appropriate list. Well referenced by both primary and secondary sources with adequate support for this uncontroversial material. The individual ones do not need to be notable--I don't think most of them would be. DGG (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. Gran² 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These characters are not notable enough for individual articles, but I agree with Mgm and Bill on the appropriateness of this list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the grounds of notability. Yes, there are a few substantial sources here (for Leon Kompowsky, for example), but these indicate notability of the episode, not the character, and such references should be merged to the appropriate article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sgeureka. This list hasn't recieved significant coverage enough to make it notable. Themfromspace (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The wikipedia list itself hasn't received coverage? I don't think that's what you mean to say. ;) Please clarify. Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I meant that the topic of the list hasn't recieved significant coverage. Themfromspace (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Simpsons is one of the most influential television shows of all time, and has produced its fair share of memorable one-shot characters. While Sguereka and Marasmusine are correct that the characters can be discussed in the episode articles, an article like this is useful for navigation purposes. The grand list of episodes doesn't contain any episode descriptions, and while the season LoEs do, most readers will not know by heart which season a character appeared in. They'd have to browse through 20 lists, which is a bit daunting. On top of all that, readers may only vaguely remember what the character's name was, and how it is spelled, which rules out redirects to episode pages as a useful solution. But browsing through a page like this, they can hopefully find what they need. Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should we have lists of one-time characters in every other popular television show as well? [1] I don't think so. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was waiting for someone to say that. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. If there are entire college courses about those shows (as is the case with The Simpsons), then why not? I don't think anyone's seriously proposing List of one-time characters in According to Jim, or anything like that. Zagalejo^^^ 08:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These characters, if they are important one-time characters, should already be called out in the various episode lists and the episodes themselves as a character in those, redirects from their names going to those locations. Having them listed here is sorta flipping the episode lists/episodes around to describe the character in light of the episode. That is, this information is highly duplicative of what should already be listed in the episodes. There's also an arbitrariness to this list, suggesting some one-time characters are more important than others that aren't included, and that some characters have reappeared (albeit non-speaking) thus not one-time. Where there are notable sources ("Hank Scorpio") these should be appropriate listed on the episode page in the question (not that most Simpsons episodes need it, but if this was the only notable aspect of the episode, I'd say it would still be enough to keep the episode instead of making a separate character page). --MASEM 13:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable characters, in a non-notable list. If they were one time characters then they don't have their own page, and their only mentioned, and already, mentioned on the episode article page. We don't need a list of them. At best, I'd say redirect each character's name to their episode article (since this is The Simpsons and I know every episode has an article).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In many other articles, as a cleanup process, we removed characters with fewer than x appearances. (where x usually 1,2 or 3). These characters are not notable and have a very minor (maybe not at all) influence to the show alone. It seems like a way to write the plot of some episodes again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are several reliable sources in the article, which establish notability for the topic.—Chris! _ct 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Not enough: notability needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ... which this artilce does not have. Springnuts (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough? Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, Washington Post to name a few are pretty substantial and independent. The NYT and EW articles go into detail about the characters. There's not enough information to support individual articles, so The list is a good place to combine the sourced information. I can understand people have issue with the list format, but the sourcing here is pretty solid and indicates there'll be more independent sources out there too. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These sources can safely be brought into the individual episode articles to go on about the character in the reception, as an alternative to this list. --MASEM 01:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirecting to individual episode articles is a useful solution per User:Zagalejo's reasoning.—Chris! _ct 02:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zagalejo's reasons is based on users thinking they know the name of a character but can't recall episode or season. That's reasonable, but with redirects to catch most major misspellings, WP's search engine that guesses closely named characters, and the ability to create categories to sort characters all avoid the need for this list. --MASEM 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add another tool? Sometimes, a reader will have trouble even coming up with a search term. I suppose the last option could help solve that problem, but I think lists are much easier to use for those who aren't Wikipedia experts. A category also eliminates the brief descriptions of the characters, which can ensure readers that they've found what they were looking for. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.—Chris! _ct 06:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many of these characters have had long lasting impacts on the show and popular culture. Rhino131 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 1/425 episodes, barely any description and no established notability. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the respective episode articles suffice all the needed information. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – coverage in the episode articles is sufficient. No adequate notability asserted for the list as a whole. The notability for the individual elements only confirms the notability of the episode itself rather than the character, and by extension, the list, making it unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:13, 2 December 2008 (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.