Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons

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 Delete. The numeric vote is roughly a tie, but the author says it should be deleted and the keep votes were weak. Will delete. Woohookitty 05:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity in The Simpsons

This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a Simpsons trivia listing. Fine for a fan site, but what is it doing in an encyclopedia? If someone could point me to a Ph.D. dissertation on nudity in The Simpsons, I might concede that there's a topic here to be discussed, but otherwise it's just snippets from episodes. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

• I'm the author, so I don't know if I can vote. But we also have a References to Star Trek in The Simpsons. Anyway, this is a dimension of the show CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
• Keep (but a weak vote only). No stupider than 17,497 other junky trivia articles we wind up keeping. Tannin 2 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
  • Thanks. And also, see the "See also" section. We already have this kind of stuff. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
    • OK. I'll VfD those also. Nothing personal. It's just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't consider this an encyclopedia article. If it's valid, so also would be Celebrity appearances in The Simpsons, Animals in The Simpsons, Sports in The Simpsons, Cross-dressing in The Simpsons, Alcohol in The Simpsons and hundreds of similar topics. Is there a Wikicities site for The Simpsons yet? If so maybe we could move the article there. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
      • In some articles we do cover celebrities on the Simpsons. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
        • I'm not the first to say this, but: the fact that we have articles that don't really belong on Wikipedia is not a reason to add more such articles. Like I said, this is nothing personal. I consider Wikipedia a public resource, and would thus prefer that it not dedicate server resources, memory, and bandwidth to serving as a fansite host. Isomorphic 2 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
          • Now that I've had a chance to clear my head, let me start over: the reason I started this was not because we have other trivia articles, but because it's a dimension of the show and a depiction of nudity, but wouldn't fit in either (already long) major article. Simpsons is a cultural item of nearly equal importance to other major fictional topics. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
• Redirect again, could be turned into a one or two sentence mention that nudity features in the show. I'm not feeling pity on the hardware (never pity the hardware, that's a rule of mine), but I think we do need to keep information contained as well as possible to avoid incompatible edits to similar info. -Harmil 2 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
• Keep, would fit fine in an encylopedia of the Simpsons. Kappa 2 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
• Weak keep You can see from the furore over Janet Jackson's wayward nipple, that the sight of a naked body on television is a huge issue in the United States. Americans need to get out more. --Lee Hunter 2 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
• Keep, This "encyclopedia" has articles about plenty of other crap. Get rid of that, then come back to this. Pacific Coast Highway July 2, 2005 18:15 (UTC)

• Delete: There is no discussion of nudity in the Simpsons. It is, instead, a catalog of nudity in "The Simpsons." Until we become an encyclopedia of "The Simpsons," there is no place for what amounts to yet another cross index. Geogre 2 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of "The Simpsons". And "Star Wars". And "Pokemon". . . . Pburka 2 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
• Do we have an article on The Simpsons? If so, merge it with that. I don't see the need for a separate article; this could do well as a section within a longer article. See below. Rob Church 2 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
  • Pages need to be kept to a reasonable size. Kappa 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I had no idea that the main article was so large. In that case, I vote to keep the article, although external references in the Simpsons could be a new article itself... Rob Church 2 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Simpsons-cruft. Go start a Wikicities Simpson site and put it there. --Calton | Talk 3 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
• Keep. This is in the same boat as "Buildings in (City Name)" or any other really specific article. We have articles on basically every single London Tube station, but this can't exist!? This article would normally belong in the main Simpsons article, but, because this is huge, split-offs are appropriate. -newkai | talk | contribs July 3, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
• Delete Simpsons cruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
• Looking back on this, I regret it now. Delete. Seeing as how I'm the principal author and Wikipedia is not a democracy, I think that advances the case for deletion. CanadianCaesar 4 July 2005 01:49 (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.