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 delete. While this article has been kept several times in previous AfDs, there is clearly a broad consensus that this list is non-notable. It's entirely appropriate for consensus to evolve over time and it's been almost a decade since it was last assessed. Lord Roem ~ (
talk)
21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete "One-time" says it all, this is a list of non-notable characters. The information is better off in the Simpsons Wiki or similar.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Pointless collection of minutia. If there are any that are relevant search terms, it's easy enough just to redirect to the episode in question. Otherwise cataloging them can be left to a fan wiki.
TTN (
talk)
21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. And, on top of that, original research. Note that it's not actually a list of one-time characters, but characters who were "central" one time. Yikes. Otherwise, I was going to see how closely this might parallel
List of Simpsons guest stars. Answer? It doesn't matter; this isn't salvageable in any form.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The Simpsons Wiki has this information already,
here. In other words, no need for a transwiki before we delete it: this can go directly into the recycle bin.—
S MarshallT/
C22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The passage of many years demonstrates that the topic is sound. The page has been read by hundreds of thousands of people in that time and the talk page indicates that they have no complaints. All we have in this case is a disruptive, drive-by nomination and a tiny claque of supporters. Such ambushes and attrition are a significant cause of the decline in Wikipedia particpation as people won't invest effort when their work can be so casually destroyed without regard to the principles of natural justice such as
double jeopardy.
Andrew D. (
talk)
13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Racism has survived for many years, but I wouldn't call it sound. Just because the article has been read and there are no complaints on the Talk page doesn't mean that the list is appropriate. As for the rest of your counterargument, please read
WP:ASPERSION.
DonIago (
talk)
20:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The sheer amount of people who agree that it's non-notable kind of proves your "drive-by nomination" argument wrong. If it was really an ill-considered nomination then there would be some controversy outside yourself. I'm sure people did invest time and energy into this list, but considering Simpsons Wiki probably has even more and better referenced info anyway, that doesn't really count for much.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)05:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Brooks was not a guest star; he was a regular part of the production team and voiced multiple characters. The work specifically covers such characters, "in the course of this book, we remember the iconic characters". The coverage of Brodka is likewise specifically about such characters, "The 25 Most Underrated "Simpsons" Characters". The topic clearly passes
WP:LISTN and that's why it has been kept repeatedly in the past. My !vote stands.
Andrew D. (
talk)
13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Wikipedia's lists should totally be dictated by listicles. But again, this underrated character is still described in the episode article! We're not scrubbing mention of this listicle author's #24 entirely! And if Brooks' multiple appearances don't count him as guest star, take that up with the guest star list and the producers who called him one. Not that I expect you to ever change your mind, just making sure others can see through this failed logic.
Reywas92Talk19:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- This really is indiscriminate fancruft. Previous AfDs have no bearing here since the last one was almost a decade ago, when there was actually still a chance of Wikipedia turning into Wikia. Fortunately we did not go down that road.
ReykYO!12:15, 8 November 2019 (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.
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 delete. While this article has been kept several times in previous AfDs, there is clearly a broad consensus that this list is non-notable. It's entirely appropriate for consensus to evolve over time and it's been almost a decade since it was last assessed. Lord Roem ~ (
talk)
21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete "One-time" says it all, this is a list of non-notable characters. The information is better off in the Simpsons Wiki or similar.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Pointless collection of minutia. If there are any that are relevant search terms, it's easy enough just to redirect to the episode in question. Otherwise cataloging them can be left to a fan wiki.
TTN (
talk)
21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. And, on top of that, original research. Note that it's not actually a list of one-time characters, but characters who were "central" one time. Yikes. Otherwise, I was going to see how closely this might parallel
List of Simpsons guest stars. Answer? It doesn't matter; this isn't salvageable in any form.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The Simpsons Wiki has this information already,
here. In other words, no need for a transwiki before we delete it: this can go directly into the recycle bin.—
S MarshallT/
C22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The passage of many years demonstrates that the topic is sound. The page has been read by hundreds of thousands of people in that time and the talk page indicates that they have no complaints. All we have in this case is a disruptive, drive-by nomination and a tiny claque of supporters. Such ambushes and attrition are a significant cause of the decline in Wikipedia particpation as people won't invest effort when their work can be so casually destroyed without regard to the principles of natural justice such as
double jeopardy.
Andrew D. (
talk)
13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Racism has survived for many years, but I wouldn't call it sound. Just because the article has been read and there are no complaints on the Talk page doesn't mean that the list is appropriate. As for the rest of your counterargument, please read
WP:ASPERSION.
DonIago (
talk)
20:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
The sheer amount of people who agree that it's non-notable kind of proves your "drive-by nomination" argument wrong. If it was really an ill-considered nomination then there would be some controversy outside yourself. I'm sure people did invest time and energy into this list, but considering Simpsons Wiki probably has even more and better referenced info anyway, that doesn't really count for much.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)05:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Brooks was not a guest star; he was a regular part of the production team and voiced multiple characters. The work specifically covers such characters, "in the course of this book, we remember the iconic characters". The coverage of Brodka is likewise specifically about such characters, "The 25 Most Underrated "Simpsons" Characters". The topic clearly passes
WP:LISTN and that's why it has been kept repeatedly in the past. My !vote stands.
Andrew D. (
talk)
13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Wikipedia's lists should totally be dictated by listicles. But again, this underrated character is still described in the episode article! We're not scrubbing mention of this listicle author's #24 entirely! And if Brooks' multiple appearances don't count him as guest star, take that up with the guest star list and the producers who called him one. Not that I expect you to ever change your mind, just making sure others can see through this failed logic.
Reywas92Talk19:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- This really is indiscriminate fancruft. Previous AfDs have no bearing here since the last one was almost a decade ago, when there was actually still a chance of Wikipedia turning into Wikia. Fortunately we did not go down that road.
ReykYO!12:15, 8 November 2019 (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.