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 No consensus. Pascal.Tesson 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion in The Simpsons
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
• Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup. >Radiant< 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I believe you have succesfully created a trainwreck by making seven identical nominations, forcing everybody to repeat themselves several times. >Radiant< 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there are people with different comments for different AFDs, so it's working out. Kind of. I didn't know how events would turn out. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thought this does appear to be the best approach. >Radiant< 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable. (I tend to agree with Radiant on the trainwreck effect, although we would probably have gotten mad if you had bunched them all in a "Delete all" fashion too.) Mandsford 12:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought so too, until I hung around here for awhile. Soon, you will be brainwashed like the rest of us. This is not the real world, this is Planet Wikipedia. You'll see.... Mandsford 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the travel article - There is no real-world notability for the topic of "places the Simpsons have travelled." Yes, the Simpsons are iconic and we love them so, but that doesn't that every. single. detail. of them requires an article. Otto4711 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete travel article unless completely rewritten. Keep, but expand with sources immediately. From memory, notable destinations include England (Tony Blair played himself), Cuba (Was featured by the BBC on an in depth study about Cuba), Brazil (Received backlash over depictions of various things), India (The first international journey by Homer, discussed in the DVD commentary as pushing the limits for the show at the time). There's probably more, but these received significant out of universe coverage. I don't like the article in it's current form. I'd prefer it to be rewritten with the out of universe sources for at least the few I've mentioned, with perhaps a short list of the more notable places (eg Japan, Australia). ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Projectify pending improvements as suggested above. Of course, it'd help if the nominator had come up with a specific reasoning for this article, as I think this is the weakest one. Though it is still possible that the guidebooks and other material cover it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though I agree that this is the weakest of all the nominated articles, traveling is a major, recurrent theme of the series. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:

1. These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
2. They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
3. They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.

szyslak 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable. Useight 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Starts with a WP:OR conjecture unverified claim "Travel is a common recurring theme in the television show The Simpsons" and goes downhill from there. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but find it difficult to deem this encyclopedic. Tendancer 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Traveling is one of the major themes of the show. --musicpvm 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there should be a wealth of reliable sources attesting to the notability of the theme. Could you point out a few? Otto4711 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some people use this website to learn about their favourite T.V shows so deleting everything doesn't help. I can't remember enough so I us the same pages multiple times.

They can easily go to Simpsons wiki at http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central, where WP:NOR-violating fancruft such as these Simpsons articles actually belong. WP:FICTION clearly states this sort of thing should be trans-wikied. Tendancer 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For nmore information, Click Here. JoeyLovesSports 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, no reliable sources on the topics covered. What sources are there are examples of original research, since they are used to assert facts unrelated to the topic that are then synthesised by the authors. Tim Vickers 17:40, 19 August 2007 (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.