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 of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 02:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One-time characters from The Simpsons[edit]

• Delete: This list is useless since The Simpsons has hundreds of one-time characters that are not that important, it conflicts with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not where it says this is a textbook "indiscriminate collection of information" and is mostly fancruft. But the end result remains an encyclopedic fancrufty list. mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am in no way an obsessive Simpsons fan, and in fact have never seen an episode. I couldn't tell you who the supporting characters were; however, I find this interesting, encyclopedic, and not at all cruft. Cruft would be having detailed articles on every single one-time character. A list acknowledges them in one page in the necessary detail. Crystallina 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If the list was close to complete, I would agree with your comment, but on a second thought, I think that there are more then just a couple of hundreds of one-time characters that are not in the list --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I love The Simpsons with a fiery passion- Matt Groening is a god. With that said, I have no choice but to vote delete, as this really is an indiscriminate info collection. There are hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of one-off characters. For every Frank Grimes, there are dozens of characters who had one line. What about guest stars? They're one-time characters. This list could go on and on, and the point is that if none of the characters would be notable enough for a WP article by themselves, the sum of these characters does not equal a single notable article. -- Kicking222 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. Beno1000 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft Bwithh 18:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Anchoress 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because almost every item is referenced to a specific episode, and this article thus at least meets the spirit of WP:V and WP:CITE. This does not meet that I think any article meeting WP:V and WP:CITE should necessarily be kept, but it weighs heavily in the balance. I rather like well-researched articles on obscure topics. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I hate most lists, but this one seems legit enough. Imagine the howling if each of these got an article on their own, since that's the logical alternative. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I can't believe this. Between this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of significant others of Friends, AfD is now striking against the character lists it had once encouraged for fear of having individual articles on these characters. The Simpsons especially is such a notable show that these characters are probably widely recognized and notable. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which bit of "significant" do you fail to understand. This is equivalent to List of insignificant others of Friends. Delete, snpp.com can cover this. -- GWO
• Strong delete Simpsoncruft. They don't need individual articles, they don't need a list, this is of general interest to no one outside of hardcore Simpsons fans. Have you ever heard of The Simpsons Archive? Danny Lilithborne 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article is very informitive, encyclopedic and has a purpose. Deleting it because another page has simular information is very silly. If The Simpsons is well known enough to have articles on each of its episodes, then we shouldn't delete this article. Spongesquid 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete. —Viriditas | Talk 23:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Kaizersoze 23:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Why on earth is this even being considered for deletion? The basis that "there's so many one time characters in the Simpsons that it doesn't even matter" is absurd. It completely contradicts the entire purpose of Wikipedia, which is to bring people ALL forms valid of information available. A listing of characters that actually appeared on the show, even if it was once is valid information. I really think more people need to take the time to really understand what the word "fancruft" means. A listing of characters who actually appeared on the show isn't fancruft, thats just general information...I can't make up the fact Allison Taylor was actually a character on the show even if she appeared only once. What if some person came on the website, and thought "I wonder what was the name of so and so from that episode where Lisa meets her match." and find that this character has no page of their own...and that the character isn't even listed in a list. This isn't Simpsoncruft, its a general list of one time characters BECAUSE of the fact they don't require their own individual pages. Where else is that information going to be put if thats the case other than a single list? . This list is neither pointless nor is it fan based, its a general listing of characters who don't need their own page. This page is not just for the die hard Simpsons fans, the show is so well known and everyone has some fond memory of it that they'll no doubt come to wikipedia to look up some random bit of information on it and one time characters fits that bill. Thats the whole reason I made the character template, so that not only are the individual profiles easilly accessed....but the lists to the minor charactes not listed there are also ready for easy access. This isn't maintaining valid information folks, this is blatantly sacrificing the integrity of a wikipedia meta-article for the sake of cleanliness. Its not right. This doesn't conflict with what wikipedia is not at all because its all basic and valid information. What are we just going to just pretend whole characters don't exist just because they don't warrent their own page? If anything, thats against what wikipedia is. Yes, there's Simpson websites where this information can be accessed...but since when did Wikipedia become a place that tells people looking for info on something to "look somewhere else". I mean..honestly. If a character that doesn't warrent their own page gets one we'll deal with it (like the case with Ling Bouvier), but deleting this whole page because its supposedly "irrelevant" is irresponsible. --Kiyosuki 01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of Wikipedia is not "to bring people ALL forms valid of information available." I wish people would stop inventing new missions for Wikipedia, when the mission has always been to be a "free encyclopedia." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is longstanding policy. We can certainly discuss whether this particular article is encyclopedic or not, but it is plain wrong to say Wikipedia's mission is to include all valid forms of information. Wikipedia's mission is to include those forms of information that belong in an encyclopedia.Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is, is that if this place is supposed to be an encyclopedia...the deletion of this page would be a terrible waste of valid information that exists whether people like it or not. If this was a page about something that was really unecessary like complete fan created info or every single character ever including background characters, then it'd be different. But these are characters that as stated...had an impact on the episode they were in even if it was only one. They had personalities, voices, and a purpose. The deletion of this page is a total lack of foresight and common sense. Everyone would constantly come and create either this page, or individual pages for whatever character they didn't find on here over and over again. Its stuff that was actually in the show, and had some weight so its not just going to go away. I admit that my opinion of what this place is isn't flawless, but I whole heartedly think its more accurate than the nearsighted logic behind the decision to question this page's validity.--Kiyosuki 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I took a look at the "indiscriminate list of information" section of WP:NOT, and it says, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". I would say this list fits that pretty well, because of the phenomenal popularity of The Simpsons. --Joelmills 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Joelmills. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, either. jgp 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom, pointless list. --Strothra 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Crystallina. Lbbzman 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -JYOuyang 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joelmills. Crazysunshine 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Joelmills. Tyrenius 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it is important to note that many of these one time characters played significant roles in their respective episodes, and furthermore that many of them were voiced by very notable celebrities. This, combined with Joelmills argument, leads me to a keep. CharacterZero | Speak 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this is 1 of about 5 (one time, recurring, list of characters, animals, LBGT, etc.) character lists from the Simpsons that is about to get cleaned up... see Wikiproject The Simpsons (just recently hijacked from orphan status)... - Adolphus79 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's lots of useful information. if it was on the main Simpsons page I'd say delete or merge, but since it's its own page, I think it's fine. --Awiseman 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I want you to keep this list. It is very neat. I find it troublesome that just because somebody doesn't want this article here, means we have to go through an entire debate about it. --Matthew Jones, 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that a few other people have 'voted' delete, and therefore it's not just one person. If everyone had voted keep, I or another administrator probably would have stepped in and closed the AFD early. Proto||type 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The alternative is a hellish cruftpit of articles for each one-time character, to which we do not want to return. People will insist on this stuff being somewhere, so I'd rather see it concentrated into one article. A valuable dumping ground for redirects. Proto||type 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - could do with sorting in some fashion however, possibly alphabetical or by episode production order. Also merge the articles this links to into the list (e.g. Mojo) QmunkE 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Will (^E_@) T 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - CNichols 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Kiyosuki. Sums up my entire feeling of people wanting to edit out pages not relevant to THEM, but certainly informative to others. -- buckyboy28 18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It could do with some cleanup, and perhaps Cecil deserves his own entry. But keep because it's The Simpsons, really, and it's huge popularity means that this kind of information will have more use than, say, my village's entry... Perks 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep 69.138.229.246 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "First they came for the fancruft, and I did not speak out because I didn't contribute to that list..." God forbid we start hunting for airplanecruft, because "who's ever heard of the Noratlas, anyhow? del, NN" - Saaber 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Longhair 04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Disk is cheap and this article is both useful and long enough that it represents a considerable amount of someone's time. (No _real_ need to delete anything useful that isn't inaccurate, spam/vanity, or illegal.) Bryce 17:40, 26 May 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.