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.
Keep - it's a finite, maintainable, well-presented list detailing an important and iconic part of the main subject The Simpsons, and arguably independently notable of the show it is derived from. The pop culture impact of the Simpsons is immense enough that what would be listcruft elsewhere can be independently notable here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Call for better nomination. Frankly, if an article is viewed 5000 times a month, nominating it for deletion with "cruft. list. listcruft. nuff said." is very rude and disrespectful, not to mention that the argument is very superficial and could be classified as WP:ITSCRUFT. Please rewrite the nomination to demonstrate that you have put some thought into the matter. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These types of articles are what Wikipedia is all about...okay it is for the nerd in us all, or is it the couch potato in us all?...Seth Whales (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the nom, with no policy cited for why this should be deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to the problems with List Of Problems Solved by Macgyver[1], yes it's awesome, yes it gets tons of hits, no it's not encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close: Per bad faith nomination and possible appliance to WP:SNOW. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind explaining what exactly is bad faith about the nomination. Ridernyc (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While not the best worded nomination it brings up valid points and is in no way bad faith. As for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT that's words put on on it by people trying to keep the article without citing policy, interesting,gets a lot of hits, this is what Wikipedia is great at, none of them are valid reasons to keep. However an article with no real world context that simply lists hundreds of gags from a show fails a number of policies about fiction. Ridernyc (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIMPSONS, the de facto state of affairs on Wikipedia that The Simpsons is beloved to many of the persons who maintain Wikipedia. Don't complain too much. We've been working for years at removing moronic references to The Simpsons in serious encyclopedia articles (for example, [Kaiser Wilhelm II] "was parodied in a Halloween episode of the Simpsons, where he tries to fit in with a group of cowboy bandits, and somehow pulls it off". The variety of openings is something people are very interested in. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a regular Simpsons editor, I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing this one go. After all, there is no List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (though it was deleted mainly because of copyright concerns). But I wouldn't be upset if it were kept either because the couch gags are a major area of interest relating to the show. -- Scorpion0422 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an independent source that defines and discusses couch gags. If if we can find 1-2 more such independent sources the article will be worth keeping, else it will need to be deleted as not meeting out notability guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many books and academic papers that discuss and list the series' couch gags. While obviously none of their list is as exhaustive as ours, such sources clearly establish the notability of the topic. A sampling:
‘‘Are We There Yet?’’: Searching for Springfield and The Simpsons’ Rhetoric of Omnitopia, by Andrew Wood & Anne Marie Todd, Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 22, No. 3, August 2005
These and other similar sources need to used to expand the lede of the article, to make it encyclopedic, but its current state is not a reason to delete. Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented above and, incidentally, because we ignore clear reader feedback at our peril. It's well established by pageview statistics that deletions like this remove content our readers genuinely want; we should always be doubly thoughtful about deletion requests that run counter to the demonstrated view of our audience. Christopher Parham(talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this list is kept, then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags needs to be reviewed. We should either keep both or delete both. People really should not be pretending it is credible that one list can be considered worthy of inclusion and the other not, there isn't a hair's width of difference between them in terms of notability or cruftness. Mockery of Wikipedia and loss of editors is all that lies down that path. And people really shouldn't sidestep this issue by citing WP:CCC and WP:OSE either, because down that path also lies mockery of Wikipedia and loss of editors. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that one was deleted mostly because of copyright concerns because of all the quotes on the page, not just because it was cruft. -- Scorpion0422 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting 'copyright concerns' from? Wikiquote apparently doesn't accept copyrighted material without permission. If the nominator's reason was copyright concerns (which he didn't state), he should have sought clarification at Wikipedia:Copyright violations before nominating, and if it is deletable due to being a copyright violation, he should probably not have suggested it could be transferred to Wikiquote. So actually, if you scratch all the votes in that Afd from people who thought that because 'its a list of quotes' and belongs on Wikiquote, plus the lack of any clarification of whether the nomination was because of copyright concerns, then that Afd is pretty much invalid, and should be reviewed. MickMacNee (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sourcing given shows pretty well that this extends well beyond simple plot material. The presence of secondary material discussing these gags makes them notable. Is a well put together list. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And WP:TROUT to the nominator for failing to articulate a deletion reason. 'nuff said? Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (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.