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: deleted under snow, then restored for unknown reasons, then speedied under G4 for recreation. I think consensus is safely on the snowy side of delete at this point. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted by User:SGGH. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion reopened and relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to ensure that a consensus is reached. Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type[edit]

I really don't see why there should be an unreferenced list of the Simpsons characters based on their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Non-notabilty and/or original research SGGH ^speak! 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heck, even a list based on blood type would be better than this, as at least in a couple cases it's been a plot point. Anyway, delete as original research, indiscriminate information, and, yes, cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute shit. JuJube (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and remain civil. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, absolute defecation. JuJube (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research based on the inappropriate assumption that a real-life psychological test is applicable to fictional characters. EALacey (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any reliable sources it is impossible to say that this is not 100% original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Par above. To bad there is no speedy for this. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess this guy wasn't meant to do stand-up comedy. Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per WP:SNOW I have deleted it. SGGH ^speak! 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't know why this was re-listed. Consensus seemed to be reached to me, which is why I never entered the discussion. Delete based on original research and no possibility to be independently sourced and verified as of now (and hopefully, never). Hazillow (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly it was relisted because it was closed with less than an hour of discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1. Just a list of names with absolutely no context. DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (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.