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. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in The Simpsons

[edit]

This is a rare self-nomination- I wrote a bit of this article because when I found it it was a list and I was trying to broaden its potential. But, it's redundant to the plot summaries of the episode articles and to the article on cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and the list seems to attract OR- in case you're curious, Homer was originally listed as a Democrat, was then categorized as a Republican, and is now labelled a communist. I'm curious as to whether it will survive, I abstain. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps the article should just be improved. The point of having theme articles is because in the main Simpsons page, you have to deal with people who say "a section The Simpsons stance on politics should be included", but instead, there is simply a link to this page. The Simpsons archive has a section on political leanings and other references. As for Homer, I don't think he has a specific party, but he has had republicanish thoughts. And, he has done Communistish things, which is why he's listed under a communism section, but perhaps that one can go. -- Scorpion 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Scorpion. It's certainly redundant with the episode articles, and some of the categorizations are suspect (really Homer's political views change depending on the plot, compare Sideshow Bob Roberts and There's Something About Marrying), but I agree that the topic is kind of unavoidable given the show's length and popularity, and The Simpsons has been analyzed on its religious and political content throughout the years. The article could certainly improved, but it's not bad as-is and at least close to the standards of Education in The Simpsons and Religion in The Simpsons Krimpet 07:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Scorpion. Politics is a very big subject on The Simpsons.- Just Phil

12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Scorpion and Krimpet.--S kully Collins ^Edits 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yikes, in-universe speculation and OR. The only reference listed applies to a topic we already have an article on. It really doesn't matter if "politics is a very big subject on The Simpsons" JustPhil, what matters is "is the politics of the Simpsons a big subject in the real world?". So far, this article does very little to assert that it is. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis ... not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that this article, along with the articles on religion, education, etc. in the Simpsons were originally spun off the main Simpsons article. So I would say keep and cleanup and if the resulting article is very short, merge with The Simpsons. Natalie 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satire is a large part of the show in question, and political satire is prevalent enough to warrant an article focusing upon it. Arakunem 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a good article, it just needs to be cleaned up. --takethemud 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:FICT and duplicative content; no indication of any real-world notability or influence except one article with a passing reference to this show being the source (actually just the popularizer) of one pejorative phrase. If all the unsourced (except from the show itself) and WP:OR material is removed, there isn't anything WP:V remaining that isn't already in the parent article or the "monkeys" article. Recreate this when multiple independent reliable sources, including real topical analysis and not just an opinion column, demonstrate that Simpsons political humor has had substantive effects. For comparison, fat jokes are another recurring point, and we could probably find Simpsons lines quoted on an "I Love Donuts" website, but that doesn't mean that "Obesity in The Simpsons" would be an encyclopedic article. Barno 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I want to set the record straight and say that this is not a spin off from the main article as can be seen in the first edit. This article should provide a discussion of the politics, but all it does is to summarize anything that happened on the show related to politics. You can write a good article about this, but it takes sources, which are hard to find compared to religion, psychology and philosophy, which has been the subject of some books. Since I can't find anything out-of-universe worth keeping that isn't already mentioned in the main article, then the best solution is to delete it and maybe someday somebody can start a fresh sourced article. --Maitch 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, to really set the record straight, much of the intro comes straight from the main article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but that was added later. This page wasn't created because there was too much information in the main article. --Maitch 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the Simpsons as much as the next Wikipedian, but this is article considerable novel synthesis and duplicative.-- danntm ^T _C 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up so that it focuses on satire in the Simpsons, not lists of characters by political affiliation (since this fails WP:OR. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - any factual information in this article can be relocated to one of the (many) other Simpsons articles here. It is clearly OR. --Lee Vonce 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons listed above Jellonuts 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iff there is a way to keep this of reasonable encyclopedic quality after removing any whiff of OR. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it's salvageable, actually.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT - does Wikipedia need so much Simpsons cruft? 207.34.120.71 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--M W Johnson 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And improve. Gran2 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article author. WP:OR and no real world notability. /Blaxthos 00:28, 5 February 2007 (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.