Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media in The Simpsons

Media 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):

  • Delete all per nom. One 08:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 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) 19:27, 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. In this case, "Kent Brockman" (or whatever the fictitious anchorman is called) is the negative model that local newscasts now seek to avoid. This is an instance where, I believe, The Simpsons may have had its greatest impact. "Ted Baxter" was dopey, but ever the professional and a beloved figure still imitated to this day; whereas Kent Brockman is emblematic of badly done local news Mandsford 12:14, 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) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep pending an individual consideration of what to do with this article. A talk page solution at the Simpsons wikiproject would be my suggestion. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Or they could save time and discuss it on this AFD, which is precisely for whether or not we want this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Why? Is there some hurry? Given your mass nomination and the flaws thereof, I think a more reasoned considered response would be in order, and the best way to do that would be a lengthier discussion than an AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 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) 19:27, 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 02:34, 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 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 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) 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep all per Radiant, Szyslak and others. Are you thus willing to withdraw your noms to allow pruning? Wl219 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this kind of stuff belongs in a simpsons wiki, unless somebody can tell me why "media in simpsons" is notable. Corpx 00:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Portrayal or parody of the media in The Simpsons is sufficiently notable to pass WP:Fiction, Fox News took the parody seriously enough to threaten a lawsuit, and then tried to capitalize on the media attention brought by the Simpsons' movie release. Google search returns multiple real-world information hits from reliable sources on the subject. Dreadstar † 03:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. --musicpvm 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep, great place for KBBL and other media stuff to be, because they are notable enough to have a section but not have an article themselves. Also, Fox, and Fox news play a big part in the Simpsons. Rhino131 16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • VERY Strong 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 more information, Click Here. JoeyLovesSports 01:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge section on FOX news into article on the TV channel. Do we need articles on Media in Stargate, Media in Yes, Prime Minister, Media in The West Wing? This leads to ever-accumulating piles of unverifiable fancruft. Tim Vickers 20:12, 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.