Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons2

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. Dmcdevit·t 07:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity in The Simpsons

Recently undeleted because it was voted to be deleted without proper process, I'm re-nominating it partly because others in the undeletion discussion asked for it to be re-nominated, partly because I also think it should go on basis of being little more than trivia. For the previous discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons. Francs2000 | Talk 22:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivia, not encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to say keep, but trim down the POV essay-type guff in the intro. Flowerparty 00:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic. If you look at Nudity in science fiction literature, that's what an encyclopedia article like this should look like -- a discussion of the meaning of the nudity, artistically. Not just a "sex is often a theme in the Simpsons" statement, followed by a list. Dcarrano 00:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are you serious about Nudity in science fiction literature? It's terribly written! Here's a sample sentence: "The circumstance that individuals, groups or entire nations are not clothed, is in such cases not simply an expression of a natural form of living, but reflects in an allegorical manner intentions of the author, or it fulfils different functions within the text." The writer means: "Sometimes nudity plays a symbolic role in science fiction." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why shouldn't people be able to look up how nudity is depicted in one of the most popular childrens' programs of all time? Kappa 00:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the hell would they bother? --Calton | Talk 01:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Among other reasons, they might bother because the Simpsons is a frequent target of L. Brent Bozell and his PTC protest-group. While disliked by some religious loons activists, the show also has progressive religious defenders, as seen in Religion in the Simpsons which is available at Amazon. As a lightning-rod in the "culture wars", the longest-running prime-time show presently on US television finds its morality (of which visual nudity is a frequently referenced short-hand indicator) the subject of frequent discussion. Xoloz 09:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Still Simpsons-cruft. --Calton | Talk 01:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't want to get something started, but I've noticed that Calton has a particular antipathy towards Simpsons-related articles, which he unfailingly dismisses as cruft. I don't think he can be counted on for a neutral assessment. Binadot 03:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the main Simpsons article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written and encyclopedic. Rather too much material for a merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Much as I love the Simpsons, this is in no way encyclopedic. It's a list. As was stated by Dcarrano, that Sci-Fi article is what this would look like if it was good. But it doesn't. If someone wants to write about how nudity is artistically useful in the Simpsons, go ahead. In its current state, I again say Delete. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: on the basis that its not encyclopedic, it would be absolutely foolish to delete, as that way the list would be lost and no one COULD make it encyclopedic without persay, watching all the DVDs. If you really believe its unencyclopedic due to the style its written in, then rewrite it. I think its a fine, interesting list. By the way, The Simpsons is not a childs program, just that its enjoyed by children, its not targeted for them though. By the way I did not mean to sound hostile to any other users. Redwolf24 04:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic trivial simpsonscruft. JamesBurns 08:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Radiant_>|< 10:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the main article.DS 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ravedave 19:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper and nudity in the Simpsons is a valid topic.  Grue  07:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite. --Titoxd 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Tony Sidaway. older≠wiser 03:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup, also. Show is a US cultural institution, and main page is mammoth. Topic also interesting and valid. Xoloz 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft in many forms is still cruft. Mandel 12:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of info about an interesting subject. --Trovatore 06:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedia article about a random happening in a few Simpsons episodes that is not noteworthy. Indrian 17:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, I know I've flip-flopped like a live fish on a hot grill. But I hope my recent edits reflect some of the above posters' concerns for improvement. CanadianCaesar 23:59, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.