Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Grimes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 keep, no consensus to merge. Any further merge proposals (outside of this AfD, in the future) should take place on the talk page (more information at WP:MM#Proposing a merger). However, there is no consensus to merge as a result of this debate; that's not to say that further discussion to try and develop a consensus either way won't be beneficial. Daniel Bryant 09:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Grimes
This is a one episode character from the Simpsons. He has no real notability besides the one episode, his arguably notable death, and a few cameos(by family and grave). The article should be merged/redirected to the episode he comes from or an appropriate character list. Nemu 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. BTW, merges should be listed on WP:PM if they are likely to be controversial or else you can just do it yourself. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weird, I had no clue that existed. I usually see people use this for things like this. Nemu 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Explain to me where this article fails inclusion criteria. He's a notable character from a very notable episode and notability shouldn't be dicatated by his number of appearances. There are entire chapters of books (ie. Planet Simpson) devoted to his one appearance. I'd say that he is more important to the series than half of the characters that have pages and I have no idea why people keep going after this page when there are much less notable Simpsons characters with pages. And, the afd system is being misused. It shouldn't be used with the sole intention of getting an article merged. -- Scorpion 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just saw that it was a problem article, so I decided to put it here. I really don't see how any of that earns him a page. That should be what places him apart from nameless characters. Even then, the bulk of the page is a plot summary and trivial cameos, basically the same thing as a list entry linking to the episode article. Nemu 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- So? Then you slap a clean up tag on it, you don't nominate it for deletion. I think The Simpsons WikiProect has pretty good about merging character pages (there are about 80 right now and I have plans to merge another 10), but I really do think that Grimes is a standout. It also isn't easy to merge pages considering that we're supposed to keep the one-time and recurring character lists short, but they fill up fast. -- Scorpion 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Homer's Enemy. Largely duplicate material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Homer's Enemy per CanadianCaeser. He's a great character in a great episode, but he can easily be done in the episode's article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per CC and ALTTP. He was a good character, but he was only in one episode (and mentioned in another, when his son tried to get revenge on Homer). TJ Spyke 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to the relevant episode or other page, and once again, there is a tag for that: {{merge}}. Next time this sort of thing comes up, try that step instead. If you want to withdraw your nomination and close this, it might be a good idea. Mister.Manticore 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There have already been 4 merge attempts on the article and each one has been defeated, so I think people figured that nominating it for afd would be the way to get the job done. Isn't there some sort of policy against using an afd when the nominator just wants to get the page mered? -- Scorpion 03:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know that there is a policy, but I find it the inappropriate thing to do. If people aren't convinced to merge though, maybe that should be a point to consider in not even proposing for deletion. Personally, I was thinking it'd be fine as a merge, but then I looked at the article and said "Hmm, ok, I can accept keeping that" . Mister.Manticore 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There have already been 4 merge attempts on the article and each one has been defeated, so I think people figured that nominating it for afd would be the way to get the job done. Isn't there some sort of policy against using an afd when the nominator just wants to get the page mered? -- Scorpion 03:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Article has enough information about the life and history of the character, including references in all episodes, to warrant its own article. --Mattarata 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the content is redundant to the episode. The references and history of the character could easily fit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Well I want a page for every character, but that is just unrealistic, but Frank Grimes is notable enough to stay. Gran2 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is Frank Grimes on the same level as Sideshow Bob? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because there's no functional difference between articles, thus you might as well ask why Homer Simpson is on the same level as the president of the United States. Mister.Manticore 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I shouldn't. This is a one-time character who is popular among fans and the writers/animators/etc. That does not constitute notability. The problem is that there is a weak criteria for notability, and none of the members of the Simpsons WikiProject are interested in increasing the standard. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the notability guidelines for people does include a note that people with cult followings are notable... -- Scorpion 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That seems like a crazy criteria. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, as I see it, I think your evaluation is based on a faulty premise. An article's existence is a minimal question. There is no level between individual articles in and of themselves, whether it be Frank Grimes, Sideshow Bob, Homer Simpson or Abe Lincoln. One individual article? Means little. The length of the article, now that can mean a lot, or the existence of other articles about aspects of the subject, even a category in some cases. So, I really don't think your complaint makes a difference. Almost everybody could be said to have an article. If that's all you look at, then I'd say your perspective was myopic. Mister.Manticore 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fine - most of the article is redundant to Homer's Enemy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the notability guidelines for people does include a note that people with cult followings are notable... -- Scorpion 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I shouldn't. This is a one-time character who is popular among fans and the writers/animators/etc. That does not constitute notability. The problem is that there is a weak criteria for notability, and none of the members of the Simpsons WikiProject are interested in increasing the standard. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because there's no functional difference between articles, thus you might as well ask why Homer Simpson is on the same level as the president of the United States. Mister.Manticore 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is Frank Grimes on the same level as Sideshow Bob? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've merged Frank Grimes into Homer's Enemy at [1]. Besides needing a little work on the transition, I see no reason why this couldn't be merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, although I'm not removing my Keep, if it does end up being merged (like above) then I wouldn't complain. Although I wouldn't include the official Frank Grimes image, its really bad, and there are a load of other images for him there already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gran2 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
- Small problem: Homer's Enemy is a GA and adding a bunch of stuff to it could cause it to lose its GA status. -- Scorpion 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then improve the one on my user page. I'm willing to give Frank Grimes a "stay of execution" so that the merge target can take the content well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Small problem: Homer's Enemy is a GA and adding a bunch of stuff to it could cause it to lose its GA status. -- Scorpion 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, although I'm not removing my Keep, if it does end up being merged (like above) then I wouldn't complain. Although I wouldn't include the official Frank Grimes image, its really bad, and there are a load of other images for him there already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gran2 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
- Delete The Keep arguments have all been of the "ILIKEIT" variety and there are no references available to other than the original cartoon episode the character appeared in or to a fan blog. Thus the article fails WP:N and WP:ATT. "I want a page for every character" is still just "ILIKEIT." Edison 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Even though he did appear on the simpsons once, he is still a notable character.Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 18:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is NOT a reason to speedy keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He is a notable and important Simpsons character, who although he appeared once had a major effect on the plot of that and future episodes. 210.54.2.66 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why do people keep saying he's importnat? He's a well-liked character. Without him, we'd have a few less one-liner jokes and two less plots out of 300. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but trim content that merely duplicates plot summary in episode article. I predict that Frank Grimes's name will be an important component of American metaphorical language drawn from American mythology. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Predictions do not matter in this discussion, so your vote (okay, it's not a vote, but I don't want to type too much... even though explaining why I said vote is probably taking me more time than it would to simply just type something other than vote that better described what the AfD was all about) really has no reasoning. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I hope you're not planning to say that Kwyjibo's vote doesn't count just because he made a prediction. Anton Mravcek 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. If the user doesn't have a quality argument, their "vote" is lower than someone who gave a sound argument. His "vote" is entirely based on both "I like this article" and original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I hope you're not planning to say that Kwyjibo's vote doesn't count just because he made a prediction. Anton Mravcek 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Cromulent Kwyjibo. We wouldn't be having this discussion about Damocles. Anton Mravcek 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comparing an already moral anecdote to a maybe but no reason to believe will be moral anecdote? At what point are they even the same situation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment If Leno goes 'jaywalking' and asks about Damocles, most people won't know. If they do know, they probably know because of The Simpsons. Ask them about Frank Grimes, and you'll get more correct answers than asking for Damocles. So no, at no point will they even be in the same situation. Grimes is much better known by the American proletariat than Damocles will ever hope to be. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Redirect to Homer's Enemy. JuJube 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If they know who Frank Grimes is, yes. The fact of the matter is that even despite that, Damocles deserves an article much more. The only arguments for Frank Grimes are popularity and "I like it", while those against it have redundancy to the episode's article combined with lack of a significant role in the series. Major popularity, minor importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep - he's been on one significant episode, his son mentioned him on a second episode, and his gravestone was on a third. - Richard Cavell 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Being in a few episodes does not make him notable. You see him in several minor jokes and two plots. Seriously, is there a pressing need for him to have his own article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not dictated by the length or number of appearances. Frank Grimes, although he made only one appearance, is a notable character on his own because, as I have said, he has been the subject of many different analysises, such as in Planet Simpson. -- Scorpion 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Popularity and notability are two entirely different things. The only reason that this AfD won't pass is both because someone posted that it was being AfDing on the Simpsons Project (which is really in bad form, since it looks more like a call to arms than trying to get specific editors involved) and because people use the "I like it" argument. But regardless, the closing admin should take into consideration that the AfD was skewered by the Simpsons cabal being called to arms to defend the article. And by the way, do you have any coverage by a source other than the creators, fans, or a fan site? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it was added to the proect page by a non-member. -- Scorpion 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the talk page? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I would say the reason this AfD won't pass is because the argument for deletion is unconvincing. Now that said, the person making the nomination really should have consulted with the project before this action anyway. Not saying whatever their opinion might have been would have forbidden this, but that would have been a better way to go about the process. However, since it was nominated, getting the involvement of editors interested in the subject of the Simpsons is very important, which is why I did add it to the main page. Adding it to the talk page? Bit redundant, but I don't see too much of a difference. Now if somebody is going out and soliciting individuals, that would be more inappropriate. Mister.Manticore 06:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it was added to the proect page by a non-member. -- Scorpion 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Popularity and notability are two entirely different things. The only reason that this AfD won't pass is both because someone posted that it was being AfDing on the Simpsons Project (which is really in bad form, since it looks more like a call to arms than trying to get specific editors involved) and because people use the "I like it" argument. But regardless, the closing admin should take into consideration that the AfD was skewered by the Simpsons cabal being called to arms to defend the article. And by the way, do you have any coverage by a source other than the creators, fans, or a fan site? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not dictated by the length or number of appearances. Frank Grimes, although he made only one appearance, is a notable character on his own because, as I have said, he has been the subject of many different analysises, such as in Planet Simpson. -- Scorpion 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Being in a few episodes does not make him notable. You see him in several minor jokes and two plots. Seriously, is there a pressing need for him to have his own article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Common Sense. Slickshoes3234 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...That's not a reason to keep. It might be common sense to Simpsons fanboys that every popular non-recurring Simpsons character needs an article, but not to... everyone else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, now you're really starting to get offensive. "Simpsons fanboys that every popular non-recurring Simpsons character needs an article", we have been trimming articles. Excuse me if all WikiProjects can't be as diligent as the video games project when it comes to merging character pages, but when I first joined the project, there were 120 Simpsons character pages and I think we've been doing a good job at getting rid of some while still keeping the recurring and one-timers lists relatively short. Your side still hasn't shown me any specific guidelines the article is breaking except saying it generally fails WP:N or WP:ATT -- Scorpion 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...That's not a reason to keep. It might be common sense to Simpsons fanboys that every popular non-recurring Simpsons character needs an article, but not to... everyone else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Homer's Enemy is one of Matt Groening's favorite episodes, according to an interview in which he describes the episode as "the Frank Grimes one." Frank Grimes is part of American cultural literacy, and is notable enough for his own article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is with people talking as if Frank Grimes has any relevancy outside of Simpsons? He is NOT a moral anecdote and he is NOT a part of "American cultural literacy". He's a popular Simpsons character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Go to your local library, borrow "Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Documented an Era and Defined a Generation" and turn to page 99. There's also a lengthy section in "Leaving Springfield". -- Scorpion 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is with people talking as if Frank Grimes has any relevancy outside of Simpsons? He is NOT a moral anecdote and he is NOT a part of "American cultural literacy". He's a popular Simpsons character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SS. Works best as a seperate page. Notability is a shown by the book mentioned above that talks about him. - Peregrine Fisher 10:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Someones being a real Frank Grimes about getting this page deleted... Augurr 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for some reason why Frank Grime NEEDS an article. Are there any reliable sources? Not fan sites or fan books? Of course a Simpsons book would mention it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for you to tell me specifically which guidelines it fails. -- Scorpion 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Common sense - do you honestly believe that a fan work on The Simpsons is on the same level as a non-fan source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I looked that up and found nothing. Please tell me a real guideline the forbids the existance of this page. There are Simpsons characters out there with pages who have made even less of an appearance (Hank Scorpio, Fall Out Boy, Happy Little Elves, Worker and Parasite), all of which you've never gone after. This is the second or third time you've gone after ol' Grimey, which makes me think you have something against the episode. -- Scorpion 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- A quick one would be WP:N. The character really asserts no notability. All the info pretty much pertains to Homer's Enemy. Half the article is a plot summary of that episode, and the other half basically fits in the production section(if slightly reworded). Nemu 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I went after Hank. Hell, you merged him just recently. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- So yeah, I would like the closing admin to take into account the fact that it fails WP:N by not having secondary sources to back up the character's importance or notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- There, I have added sources. -- Scorpion 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Four of those are from fan sites. One of them is reporting on the opinion of a Simpsons writer. And one of them is discussing the quality of the character, not his notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, since when are EW and IGN fan sites? -- Scorpion 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- At what point is that question important? I said: four of them are fan sites. EW discusses MATT'S opinion of HIS OWN character, and IGN discusses their opinion of the character's quality, not his notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are only 2 internet sources. and you said they were fan sites (your words), and I'm curious as to why you consider EW and IGN fan sites? -- Scorpion 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you can't be bothered to read a single word of my statements, I shouldn't even bother to reply. But how's this?:
- How many sources are there? Are there only four? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is getting pointless. You said "Four of those are from fan sites." Only 2 are websites (and they are certainly not fan sites), 2 are books and 2 are DVD commentaries. You are trying to discredit my sources, but it seems that you haven't even looked at them. -- Scorpion 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, four of the sources are not secondary sources. Does it matter that I don't look at what kind of source they are? One is referencing the opinion of a Simpsons writer, and the other doesn't show its notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the IGN link shows his quality as a Simpsons character, and doesn't assert its out-of-universe notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is getting pointless. You said "Four of those are from fan sites." Only 2 are websites (and they are certainly not fan sites), 2 are books and 2 are DVD commentaries. You are trying to discredit my sources, but it seems that you haven't even looked at them. -- Scorpion 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are only 2 internet sources. and you said they were fan sites (your words), and I'm curious as to why you consider EW and IGN fan sites? -- Scorpion 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- At what point is that question important? I said: four of them are fan sites. EW discusses MATT'S opinion of HIS OWN character, and IGN discusses their opinion of the character's quality, not his notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, since when are EW and IGN fan sites? -- Scorpion 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Four of those are from fan sites. One of them is reporting on the opinion of a Simpsons writer. And one of them is discussing the quality of the character, not his notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- There, I have added sources. -- Scorpion 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I looked that up and found nothing. Please tell me a real guideline the forbids the existance of this page. There are Simpsons characters out there with pages who have made even less of an appearance (Hank Scorpio, Fall Out Boy, Happy Little Elves, Worker and Parasite), all of which you've never gone after. This is the second or third time you've gone after ol' Grimey, which makes me think you have something against the episode. -- Scorpion 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Common sense - do you honestly believe that a fan work on The Simpsons is on the same level as a non-fan source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for you to tell me specifically which guidelines it fails. -- Scorpion 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, it seems this discussion is getting a little strained. Now I know I've made more than a few long discussions on AfD's before myself, but I don't think this particular aspect of the discussion is fruitful, so maybe it might be time to realize you have made your points, whatever they may be. Mister.Manticore 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article fails WP:N. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which section? You can't just say "fails WP:N" without citing specifically what it fails. -- Scorpion 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." The EW source is a special exception, because it's not "by them", they're just repeating Matt's opinion. As for IGN, that in itself is an opinion piece which only represents the character's quality as a Simpsons character - ie, it's in-universe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- And what about the two books? Planet Simpson is about The Simpsons effects on the real world. And by the way, repeating somebody's opinion is also known as an "interview", which are allowed. -- Scorpion 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- But how does it assert the character's notability? And the book, how does it discuss The Simpsons' effects on the real world, and what does it say that Frank Grimes effected? And regardless, Planet Simpson isn't a secondary source - like WP:N says, a secondary source is independent of the subject. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's an unauthorized book and nobody on The Simpsons staff had anything to do with it. -- Scorpion 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Independent to the subject. It doesn't say "not involved with the subject". The book is not independent of the subject - it is a fan book OF the subject. Seriously, you talk about cleaning up cruft on the Simpsons spectrum, but are so against cleaning this massive cruft up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Frank Grimes has been discussed in at least three books:
- Leaving Springfield is written by John Alberti an associate professor of English at Nothern Kentucky University.
- Planet Simpson is written by Chris Turner an award-winning magazine journalist.
- The Simpsons and philosophy is written by William Irwin, Mark T. Conard and Aeon H. Skoble. Irwin is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at King's College, Pennsylvania.
- I think your attempt to dismiss this material as fan books is pretty pathetic. --Maitch 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are books about Simpsons. That is a Simpsons fan book. Who wrote it doesn't matter. It's not independent from the subject. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- With your reasoning a book about WW2 would be a WW2 fan book. --Maitch 16:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- And a book about rape would be a "rape fanbook" and the book Jewish Supremacism by David Duke would be a Jewish supremacism fanbook. Being "independent of the subject" is not the same as "about an entirely different topic". -- Black Falcon 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Quick question, is it Grimes being discussed, or Homer's Enemy? For those to really show Grimes as notable, they should have little to no mention of the episode. Also, if these books do truly define his notability, why are they only used to source things that happened in the episode? And ALTTP, I believe those count as secondary sources. They're written by people that study the Simpson's effect on culture(as far as I can tell), which seems to match it's definition.Nemu 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Leaving Springfield discuss both the character and the episode in two different parts of the books.
- Planet Simpson discusses the character.
- The Simpsons and philosophy discusses the character. --Maitch 16:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you breifly describe how how he is talked about in them, and for how long of a duration? Also, can you answer the question: "If these books do truly define his notability, why are they only used to source things that happened in the episode?" Nemu 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Representing the real world" isn't something in the episode, it requires a source." - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is something in the episode. The point of bringing up the books is to say that Grimes is a notable figure beyond the episode, that he isn't bound to it. Citing things about the episode doesn't do that. Nemu 18:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that sentence was something that would be original research if not attributed, are you saying the episode says he represents the real world? That the books talk about him is what establishes notability, it's dissecting his appearance in the episode. It's not whether he is bound to episode, but whether he is a notable enough aspect of the episode. The keeps feel he is. - Peregrine Fisher 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- So? If all he is is a notable character in that episode, his notability doesn't escape the episode. That would be an excellent reason to merge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not true, being in multiple episodes doesn't establish notability, and being in one episode doesn't preclude it. It's all about other sources, which this article has. - Peregrine Fisher 19:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The sources say that the episode is notable, not the character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not true, being in multiple episodes doesn't establish notability, and being in one episode doesn't preclude it. It's all about other sources, which this article has. - Peregrine Fisher 19:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- So? If all he is is a notable character in that episode, his notability doesn't escape the episode. That would be an excellent reason to merge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Representing the real world" isn't something in the episode, it requires a source." - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you breifly describe how how he is talked about in them, and for how long of a duration? Also, can you answer the question: "If these books do truly define his notability, why are they only used to source things that happened in the episode?" Nemu 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- They are books about Simpsons. That is a Simpsons fan book. Who wrote it doesn't matter. It's not independent from the subject. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Frank Grimes has been discussed in at least three books:
- Independent to the subject. It doesn't say "not involved with the subject". The book is not independent of the subject - it is a fan book OF the subject. Seriously, you talk about cleaning up cruft on the Simpsons spectrum, but are so against cleaning this massive cruft up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's an unauthorized book and nobody on The Simpsons staff had anything to do with it. -- Scorpion 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- But how does it assert the character's notability? And the book, how does it discuss The Simpsons' effects on the real world, and what does it say that Frank Grimes effected? And regardless, Planet Simpson isn't a secondary source - like WP:N says, a secondary source is independent of the subject. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- And what about the two books? Planet Simpson is about The Simpsons effects on the real world. And by the way, repeating somebody's opinion is also known as an "interview", which are allowed. -- Scorpion 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." The EW source is a special exception, because it's not "by them", they're just repeating Matt's opinion. As for IGN, that in itself is an opinion piece which only represents the character's quality as a Simpsons character - ie, it's in-universe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which section? You can't just say "fails WP:N" without citing specifically what it fails. -- Scorpion 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article fails WP:N. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Augurr. CompositeFan 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- How can you say "per Augurr"? That's not even a legitimate reason to keep. Hell, if I was being a Frank Grimes, I would be in the right - if I'm being Frank Grimes, I would be realistic. So logically, to be a Frank Grimes is to be realistic, so to keep this article would be a Homer Simpson (unrealistic). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- ALTTP, it's in bad taste to hound every keep-!voter. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Legitimately hound them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Umm.... there's a difference between "discussing" and "hounding" and calling people who disagree with you "fanboys". I'm getting the impression that you may be taking this too personally. -- Black Falcon 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Legitimately hound them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- ALTTP, it's in bad taste to hound every keep-!voter. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- How can you say "per Augurr"? That's not even a legitimate reason to keep. Hell, if I was being a Frank Grimes, I would be in the right - if I'm being Frank Grimes, I would be realistic. So logically, to be a Frank Grimes is to be realistic, so to keep this article would be a Homer Simpson (unrealistic). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Homer's Enemy. One-time characters aren't notable enough for their own article. --FireV 02:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are more than enough arguments above, so I won't repeat them (if you want to get really technical, then keep per all the comments above by Scorpion), but let me state my initial reaction after reading this thread: WHAT THE HELL?!? Since when did "independent of the subject" become "unrelated to the topic"? -- Black Falcon 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Who cares about that anymore? The sources that are not independent to the subject are also not about Frank Grimes, but rather "Homer's Enemy". - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Who cares!? That's the main premises for your argument in the second half of this AFD! Since you seem to equate "independent of the subject" with "about a completely different topic", I'm not even sure what sources you're referring to. -- Black Falcon 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The main defense in keeping the article is that Grimes is notable. So far, only the epsisode has been notable. Grimes is always mentioned with the episode. That asserts no notability. Nemu 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Who cares!? That's the main premises for your argument in the second half of this AFD! Since you seem to equate "independent of the subject" with "about a completely different topic", I'm not even sure what sources you're referring to. -- Black Falcon 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Who cares about that anymore? The sources that are not independent to the subject are also not about Frank Grimes, but rather "Homer's Enemy". - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I added a ref about Grimes and not the episode. - Peregrine Fisher 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- What you added basically equates to trivia. A random comparison asserts no notability. Nemu 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's just another nail in the non-notable coffin. - Peregrine Fisher 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you want him to be notable actually get something that makes him notable. Apparently, you have three books that make Grimes an important part of our culture. Use those. Nemu 20:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's just another nail in the non-notable coffin. - Peregrine Fisher 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- What you added basically equates to trivia. A random comparison asserts no notability. Nemu 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - Merge with Homer's Enemy, he was only around for one episode, it doesn't seem like enough to actually make an article for him--SUIT양복 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - For the various reasons listed above, he's a well known character, the amount of episodes he's in does not seem relevant to me. Sirmorphix 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- His relevancy outside of that episode is. All sources talking about notability discuss the episode's. Also, you have too few edits to understand notability guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the trivia aspect of that reference, and used it to speak to his character and relationship with Homer. The entire body of the article is about Grimey, not the episode; I wish I could find refs like this more often. - Peregrine Fisher 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it still can be done in the episode article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- For formatting reasons, I think a seperate article is better. When someone clicks on Homer's Enemy, they should find an article about the episode, not an article half about the episode, and half about FG. - Peregrine Fisher 04:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The only thing in the article actually about Grimes(the first two paragraphs in orgins) isn't unique to the article. It can easily be reworded slightly to fit in the production section of HE. It's pretty much already there anyways. Nemu 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- For formatting reasons, I think a seperate article is better. When someone clicks on Homer's Enemy, they should find an article about the episode, not an article half about the episode, and half about FG. - Peregrine Fisher 04:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it still can be done in the episode article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the trivia aspect of that reference, and used it to speak to his character and relationship with Homer. The entire body of the article is about Grimey, not the episode; I wish I could find refs like this more often. - Peregrine Fisher 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- His relevancy outside of that episode is. All sources talking about notability discuss the episode's. Also, you have too few edits to understand notability guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
