Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (3rd nomination)

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. The article, as it stands, is perfectly reasonable; most of the previous reasons for deletion (eg excessive detail) are invalidated. The only other argument here is screeching about "notability", despite the fact that the article clearly fits within our guidelines on fiction. As such, keep.--SB | T 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons 21 May 2006
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons 28 July 2006

A DRV consensus overturned a previous deletion of this article through AfD. The matter is relisted here for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I had no personal opinion in this as the deleting admin, my careful examination of the arguments presented says this comes down to a bun-fight between Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This material is a very high level of detail regarding a theme which does not appear to be in common parlance, thus falls squarely into "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This has been countered with "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a List of characters." This counter argument is an incomplete quote however as the guideline goes on to say "This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself [...]" In this case the work itself is the episode in which the charater appears. As there is nothing meaningful to merge (minor characters have very little information, plot-important charaters already have more information in the parent articles) and the article title would not serve as a meaningful redirect I recomend deletion.
brenneman ^{L} 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While there is some conflict between this and the episode articles, and List of characters from The Simpsons, and occasionally the articles on the fictional families, I don't think deletion should be the answer. An AfD crowd won't necessarily have full understanding of the Simpsons project. If it's decided to merge this or that it's unneeded, it can be harmlessly redirected to the character list. As it is, a person could navigate with this list in the sense that he doesn't know the name of the episode in which his/her favourite character appeared, or even the season of the episode, and thus opens this list to find his/her favourite character and the link to the article about the episode- thus making this list serve as an odd form of disambiguation page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects from the charter name to the article would serve that purpose more efficiently. - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Simpson's are notable characters that appear on the show once then nevermore are not. Whispering^(talk/c) 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split to episode articles. I have thought about this for a while now. I still believe that it is an example of WP:FICT #2, but I do think that the list is really long and would be too long if it were complete. It is not my favorite page on Wikipedia, but it does serve a purpose. As long as we have this list we don't have too hunt down Simpson stubs about minor characters. I think the best compromise would be to split the list, move the information to the episode articles, and create/change the redirect so that it would go to that article. If we decide on this I will personally split the list (although it would be nice with some help from others). --Maitch 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. While they are funny, one time characters still aren't notable. I suggest (if it's not made already): a Simpsons Wiki for this. It doesn't belong on the regular Wikipedia, period. RobJ1981 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conflicting guidelines, defaulting to Keep. WP:NOT also says [Not] Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons (real or fictional) with the disclaimer Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted, but counters with Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction. WP:1SP#Check your fiction says If the subject, a character in a TV show, say, is too limited to be given a full article, then integrate information about that character into a larger article. etc., etc. I can't take from this that there is unambiguous grounds for deletion so I vote keep, but clearly this article might be the catalyst for the creation of a Simpsons Wiki. Guidelines or not, there should be limits to the detail we go into on even the most popular topics. ~ trialsanderrors 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This is a textbook case of how to handle the subject. Comments above regarding WP:NOt are not applicable. There is nothing indiscriminate about the subject matter here, which is linked to one of the most important shows of the last 20 years. Furthermore, the WP:NOT "indiscriminate collection" clauses are specific, not elastic. This article is not even close to the specific examples in the policy. I also think a merge is a poor idea and would greatly reduce the utility of the article since those seeking minor characters are not going to know the episode. This lists puts these characters all in one place and that's a good thing. --JJay 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious how this is a "textbook case" when the suggestion of "keep" contradicts that guideline? As to finding the characters, the likelihood that someone will not know the name of the episode but will know that they were in only one episode is pretty close to zero. A whole swag of redirects from the name of the character to the parent episode solves that problem easily enough, as well. - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does not contradict anything because the Simpsons is long. That's why we have Category:The Simpsons. The rest of your points regarding redirects are nonsensical given that you are arguing for deletion of the material rather than a merge. The list is a convenient resource as a standalone per the guideline. --JJay 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err, what? Please actually read my comments, where I explain why merging is not appropiate and creation of a redirect to parent episodes for the character names is also seperate from the article. What does "the Simpsons is long" mean anyway? The guideline clearly and explicitly states that the appropiate place for minor characters in in the parent work. - brenneman ^{L} 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, exactly. Please actually read my comments, where I explain why keeping the list is appropriate. The Simpsons is the parent work for all its daughter articles, and the episodes are just chapters in an ongoing saga. This list gives an overview of the use of minor characters across the entire series that surpasses the reach of an article on an individual episode. It is perfect as a jumping off point to the episode articles if greater detail is required. A very similar example is List of Shakespearean characters, which is full of minor one-off characters. I would point out that I have no personal opinion in this; my thinking is based on careful examination of the best way to organize encyclopedic information on notable topics at wikipedia. --JJay 00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ugh. That list you gave is a useless cruft. And it doesn't matter that it's about Big Bill Shakespeare. (By the way, you should've put five asterisks instead of three to have the right indentation. I've put six for my comment so that it would look right should you decide to correct yours.) --Lazybum 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks. I disagree. That's not "useless cruft". It's useful information. Every serious reference work should have a list of all Shakespeare and Simpsons characters. After all, they have both been going strong for quite some time. Certainly longer than many of our editors and readers. Your comment looks good btw. --JJay 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Useful information!? If I wanted to know more about the drunken porter's monologue in Macbeth, do you really think I'd go to that list and look for "Porter"? No, I'd go look in Macbeth for the aftermath of Duncan's murder. (Or, I'd go read the play itself.) You can pretend that an indiscriminate character list is a result of scholarship, but really it is raw notes stapled together with no context. (By the way, I've fixed the indentations for you.) --Lazybum 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are missing the point. Where do you go to find a summary listing of all the characters from all plays? Or to find Reynaldo if you can't remember the play? There is nothing "indiscriminate" about these types of lists (please review WP:NOT), and "indiscriminate" can not be a catch-phrase for "I don't like it". They are well defined and useful reference tools. After all, we don't all have time to "go read the play" as you suggest. --JJay 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Indiscriminate" is tantamount to "put together in such an unwieldy manner that it is very difficult to use," which is what this list is. As for your example, it goes back to Brenneman's point a while ago -- The chance of someone knowing Reynaldo without knowing about Hamlet is nearly zero. It is much, much more likely that someone would ask, "What was the name of the servant to Polonius in Hamlet?" For this kind of question, this list would be useless. --Lazybum 19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One time characters really don't need any mentions at all outside of the episode articles. This article is quite redundant with the episode articles. Wickethewok 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per brenneman and Wickethewok -- Slowmover 19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FICT. If I understand it correctly, the purpose of these type of lists is to house minor characters in a central location rather than have seperate articles for each one. That sounds like a logical solution to me. RFerreira 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a broken record, but there is nothing in the guideline about "central location" but instead in "the work itself" as where these whould be kept. That's the episode. - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Didn't I already vote on this earlier? This is a good article to find famous one-time characters on The Simpsons. JIP | Talk 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's still excessively crufty. One-time characters that never appear again are not notable and do not need to be documented here. Take it to a Simpsons wiki. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible Delete. The article's own title proclaims the non-notability of its subject. A list of characters who only appeared once in the course of a long-running TV show is such a extreme form of trivia and cruft I can't believe we're even discussing it. There has to be a point at which we say "Just because it is Simpsons-related, it is not automatically notable". I don't think we'd be doing this much hair-splitting over List of one-time characters on Gunsmoke or List of one-time characters on Green Acres. wikipediatrix 20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that the claim to notability comes from the fact that most of them are voiced by celebrities. So change of title maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The List of celebrities on The Simpsons already exists. Although it is in need of detailed write-ups, it is much more worthy of existence that the list in discussion. --Lazybum 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean, detailed write-ups? If you're asking for character stubs, wouldn't that require a merge? (In other news, I'm saddened to learn that Wikipedians seem to think Maria Grazia Cucinotta is worth only two lines.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scratch what I wrote above. Upon looking at the list one more time, I find it as cumbersome and crufty as the one in discussion. What we need is a "List of celebrities" ordered by the name of the celebrities, instead of the characters they voiced or the episode numbers of their appearance. That way, very casual fans could easily look up, say, the characters that Phil Hartman voiced. --Lazybum 21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Brenneman. This list is useless for a layperson who wants to look up a character in The Simpsons. How is a non-fan supposed to know that Lyle Lanley is a one-time character but Lucius Sweet is not? For that matter, is he/she supposed to search the list for "Lyle Lanley" when the character is better known as "The Monorail Guy"? This list is of interest to the fans only. --Lazybum 20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is their notability due to the fact that they are one-timers? if not, but due to their celebrity voices as suggested by another editor, why wouldn't there be List of two-time characters from The Simpsons, List of three-time characters from The Simpsons, ad nauseum? Moreover, if we have the precedent of this we'll have List of one-time characters from Star Trek, List of one-time characters from Sesame Street etc., and the analogous List of Biblical characters who appear in only one verse, List of Harry Potter characters who appear in only one book, etc. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move or merge to List of minor characters from The Simpsons, or something like that. The fact that a character appeared one time is far too specific a criterion for a useful list. You might as well have a list of characters who wear green hats. A list of minor characters is quite useful and I believe already exists somewhere. Deco 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've made a few responses to above, but they all say the same thing. The guideline clearly says that these characters belong in the related work, why is that being ignored? - brenneman ^{L} 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful information about an important cultural topic that should appear even in a discriminating encyclopedia. A separate article seems like a reasonable organizational choice, but obviously it could be merged wherever regardless of the AFD result. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree wholeheartedly with Brenneman and wikipediatrix. Eusebeus 09:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete. I would wholeheartedly support the retention of this information, but the delete position has well-formed arguements sourced from policy while the keep side is a weakly formed arguement based on logic that ignores policy. On a personal note, I do hope that the Simpsons wiki gets formed and I'll be right there when it does. BigNate37_(T) 18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The information is useful and relevant, and of significance on a cultural level. --Commander Zulu 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you expand on this? One of the keys to a valid argument is falsifiability, and these are vauge enough it's difficuty to do so.

  1. Useful - To whom, and by what metric? If this is just an opinon then give us some examples of what you'd consider not useful to make us better understand what your judgment is based upon.
  2. Relevant - Again, how are you making this decision? Looking for "one time character" on Google, for instance, I'm not seeing much substance. What is this relevent to is the question.
  3. Of significance on a cultural level - Sorry to be repetative, but based on what? A claim that the series itself was of cultural significance would be trivial to substantiate simply by (as an example) counting the number of published academic works. Where are the published works on this subject?

  More to the point, what are the sources used to create this list? Looking over the article talk page and even the last deletion discussion it appears that characters are put here based upon original research alone. I thus amplify my original "delete" with the rider "and if kept, remove any character without reliable sources naming it as non-recurring".

  brenneman ^{L} 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JJay and others. Wikipedia is more than just a holding place for facts, we also filter and organize those facts into unique ways (some of which are just not possible on paper), and Lists are one of those ways. Nothing about this list seems "indiscriminate", and I can't understand how anyone could argue that this page should be deleted - what is the harm? Does it make Wikipedia look bad? Does it violate one of our core principles? Does the fact that this about a fictional television show somehow make it less worthy? Turnstep 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is notable since many of these are guest appearances by celeberties. Merging it in with the main article would be a bad idea since it'd simply lead to an overlong main article. --Barberio 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please per jjay and others this list is noteworthy and too long to merge Yuckfoo 17:28, 15 August 2006 (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.