Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons

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 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education in The Simpsons

Education in The Simpsons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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) 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):

• 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/Traveling 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< 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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. Agsin, irreverant comments about the educational system have that ring of truth that makes them especially topical, saying what most teachers, students and administrators would like to say but can't. Mandsford 12:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 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) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. At least some of the schools, etc. are discussed in an out of universe manner on the DVD commentary. It is possible to update this article with production information that way. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia prefers third-party sources in articles. It's part of the notability standard: it must be the subject of multiple non-trivial publications. MessedRocker (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending a deeper consideration of what to do with this article. Part of it is a listing of schools which might belong elsewhere, part of it is commentary on the themes of episodes, which would merit its own article. Not sure the topic is unified enough to stand together. But I do think the nominator's reasons are unsound. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. 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 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • 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) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • 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 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: It's really just Simpson cruft, yes the simpsons is a notable show but how many place beyond springfield Elementry are really notable educational institutions in the fictional universe, from what I can see most schools listed in this article are just one time references and that does not merit an articlce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathawk (talk • contribs)
• 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) 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is not simpsons-pedia. No notability established as to why "educations in the simpsons" is notable Corpx 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Education is one of the major themes of the show. --musicpvm 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Radiant, this is a very important subject in the Simpsons-series, can be verified, and isn't really indiscriminate. Melsaran 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Trans-wiki per WP:FICTION. Absolutely no WP:RS-conforming sources exist in article. There's a Simpsons wiki http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central especially for this sort of WP:OR- and WP:RS-breaking fancruft. Tendancer 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• 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. JoeyLovesSports 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - worthless, unencyclopedic, fails RS, OR, FICTION. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this is an article that is needed for such a huge TV series like the Simpsons because many episodes of The Simpsons feature education and should be noted. Heights 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Simpsons cruft shouldn't be so wild here on Wikipedia. There is a Simpsons wiki for a reason. Move relevant information there. I don't think Wikipedia's goal is to go this detailed into plots for fiction. RobJ1981 05:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  Why not? Melsaran (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all the currently nominated articles. The nominator makes a valid argument. None of these topics have been the subject of real-world documentation. Using the term "...in the Simpsons" does not absolve us of having to prove its significance and impact on the real world, not merely its in-universe impact. These articles fail the most basic notability guideline: "sufficient coverage in external 3rd party sources". Verifying the information from primary sources "by watching the episodes", without independent secondary source analysis does not make for a good encyclopedia article. Zunaid©® 12:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - as said above, this is what the Simpsons wiki is for. Take it there if you must. - 52 Pickup 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources. Tim Vickers 20:04, 20 August 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.