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. Rettetast (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons[edit]

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (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)

Delete. I don't know what the strange romance is between Wikipedia and The Simpsons, but this list is uncalled for and goes against the spirit of WP:SALAT and WP:LSC. Lists are not meant to be an end run around our inclusion guidelines, and if the one-time character has any relevance then they can and should be mentioned in the appropriate episode article rather than a loosely strung together list. JBsupreme (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One-time characters should be sufficiently covered by the episode summaries. —Farix (t | c) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why do you cite WP:SALAT? I don't see how the page fits in there. Is it "too general or too broad in scope have little value"? No. It is a bit specific, but not horribly so. If this were a list of male one-time characters, then I might agree. After all, The Simpsons is a long-running show known for its many characters, so a listing of one-timers wouldn't be completely unuseful. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bit tricky, as the page is more-than-well referenced, it has a good coverage in the news and other good points. If there is ever going to be a "List of one-time characters in xxxx" then this ought to be the one. There is a reason that six previous nominations failed. Therefore I would vote keep. Anyways, in the worst-case-scenario where this would go otherwise, I strongly suggest merge with List of Simpsons guest stars as these seem to overlap in over 80% of the entries. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only coverage given by the article are a series of official episode guidebooks. These guidebooks are far from third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next time, please take the time to actually check the references. I see at least a dozen references from third party sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, these AFD attacks on this page are getting out of control. The page is well referenced and has notable characters from the episodes. CTJF83 chat 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the characters are notable, why do they not have their own articles or are not listed in List of characters in The Simpsons? —Farix (t | c) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of characters is for recurring characters only. Some of them used to have their own articles (ie. Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio) for a few months before being merged here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, they aren't notable for their own article, and aren't recurring enough for List of characters in The Simpsons CTJF83 chat 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Shouldn't there be a limit to how many times someone can nominate something? It has 807 one day in January this year [1] and has had over a thousand hits a day in some past months. Why so determined to drive people away from the Wikipedia by continuously deleting things many enjoy reading? A encyclopedia wouldn't be complete without listing all characters on such a notable show. No other list would it be appropriate to merge with, nor would it fit. Dream Focus 19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That an article has a large number of hits doesn't mean that it's an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. That an article is enjoyable also doesn't mean it's an appropriate topic. The goal of Wikipedia is not to provide entertainment value. I fail to see how an encyclopedia would suffer from failing to discuss one-shot characters of a single tv show in detail. Actually, I could argue that's giving that particular show undue weight. Doniago (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We once hosted a list called "List of big-bust models and performers" which was quite "popular" in terms of hit count. If I understand correctly, it was quite often in the top 100 most visited pages, but that sure didn't mean it offered much in terms of encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim - remove entries for characters without demonstrated (i.e. sourced) notability. Doniago (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as it is a renomination of an article kept multiple times in previous discussions. The article concerns memorable characters from one of the top ten most enduring and significant animated franchises in history, i.e. despite the title, some of these appear in games and other merchandising beyond the show. No one can honestly say they are not notable. Much literature has been written discussing characters from this franchise, which means that they are verifiable through reliable sources. Moreover, per WP:PRESERVE, the cited entries at worst are mergeable and because the article is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio, there is no urgent/compelling need to redlink it and thus protect the public from it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion and there is no truthful policy or guideline based reason either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't entirely true. It was deleted once in a previous discussion. There have also been several previous "no consensus" results. Also, consensus can change. WP:CCC. JBsupreme (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once an article is kept, we do not try again to delete it. Instead, we focus on improvement. As additional sources can become available down the road, we can by contrast restore and therefore keep a previously deleted article. But once it is established that the community sees value in an article, we keep it. After all "notability" does not decline. If anything, the subject's significance and available sources only increases (barring of course an apocalyptic scenario in which archives and libraries are vaporized). By the way, your use name and talk page are showing up as redlinks, even though they both still possess content. I am not technical wizard, but you can try the help request that shows up in welcome message templates to see if someone can help you with that so as to avoid any confusion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• off-topic, A Nobody, I imagine JBSupreme's use of red is an intentional joke, since color BA181F is programmed into his signature. THF (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I could say why, but I would just be repeating what everyone has said for the past six nominations. Rhino131 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we were to delete this article, there'd be absolutely no chance for us to have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (eleventh nomination). I agree with the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (5th nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (third nomination), but I disagree with the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (6th nomination) because those nominations did not follow the Fibonacci sequence. THF (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CCC, but I think it isn't turning in the direction the nom thinks it is . We need a place to discuss those characters that are not worth individual articles, and this is the compromise solution. . The characters are in a famous work. We cannot ignore them Conceivably we could present them in prose, but a list is simpler., The individual characters do not have to be notable --it fact if one goes by GNG, one would need to say they ought not be notable , because if they were, they;d qualify for a separate article. This is the rational solution. Ordinarily we discuss only the present article, but this is a general problem:Combination articles are compromises. Efforts to delete them are efforts to refuse compromise, but adopt as far a minimalist view as possible. There are inherently no possible solutions to the problem except compromise, or one extreme side winning over the other. Now, one side might be very much nearer my own view, but I want to get this question settled, not fight the same battle for years on end. Neither extreme side is likely to win--we are not at all likely to accept making a separate article for every relatively minor character possible, nor to have no minor character coverage whatsoever. So the option of getting one;s way is not realistic here--neither side will ever get stable consensus for its way, neither mine nor anyone else's. But since experience has shown that neither side will succeed in wearing out the other, there is only one rational course for anyone of any opinion in this--to accept combination articles. I dont really like to compromise any more than JB does, and I'm quite as able as he to argue indefinitely, but it's time for us all to be realistic. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—The article satisfies the notability criteria. To me it is a trivial list, but apparently it is significant to others so I see no reason to toss it.—RJH (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, eloquent and sensible. -- Banjeboi 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How many times must this article be nominated for deletion. Get it through your head that we want it to stay. Portillo (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per arguments of A Nobody and DGG. I'd to add that this has list clear inclusion criteria "( A list For purposes of this list, "one-time" means they were central to an episode one time.)" and that having a main role in a episode of one the largest TV show in the world is notable.^walk victor falk ^talk 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some sort of a moratorium should be put in place once something has been nominated and subsequently kept this many times. RFerreira (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems like an appropriate list. Per [{WP:LSC]], "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Rlendog (talk) 04:14, 8 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.