Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City (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 delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Capital City (The Simpsons)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is just a plot repetition of this minor city in various Simpsons episodes, with no assertion of notability. As such, it is just duplicative of the very high quality Simpsons article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, minor aspect of series. --JJL (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, rarely mentioned even in the series itself. Doubtful that secondary sources exist to satisfy WP:FICT. Mostly plot summary as well. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sufficiently covered by List of fictional places on The Simpsons. Per WP:FICT there is insufficient content to support a split per WP:SIZE.  I would also not be opposed to a redirect to the afforementioned link. -Verdatum (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Verdatum. Possibly redirect this term to the episode where the city first appears Doc Strange (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real-world notability (and very little in the series either). Terraxos (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, pretty much by the same above reasons, although i think we could use a little of it perhaps. Kingpomba (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Transwiki Fictional subject with no real world notability Corpx (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect without deleting to List of fictional places on The Simpsons. Definitely a memorable aspect of perhaps the most notable animated series of all time.  I was able to find at least one reference, which should be preserved.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't appear to be reliable and even if it was, it's just a direct transcription of dialogue from the show. It does nothing to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The millions who have seen the episode could also vouch for it. Sincerley, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and the guidelines to establish notability. I don't think I need to restate those guidelines again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That particular reference is for the lyrics of a song mentioned, not for notability. Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and that only reliable sources should be used as references. I don't think I need to restate the criteria for what constitutes a reliable source again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your opinion about Wikipedia, Five pillars states that it "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." A specialized encyclopedia is perfectly acceptable for information of a notable fictional city and again, I am not opposed to merging it into a list of fictional locations from that program.  Many song articles have an external link to song lyrics.  The Simpson's Guide reinforces what can be cross-referenced by watching the program in question regarding the particular aspect of the episode.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to review one primary aspect of the five pillars more closely. Specifically, the first line of WP:SOURCES and the first few lines of WP:SPS. The website you have referenced is a self-published, personal website that clearly does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Labeling it as a "specialized encyclopedia" is a blatant misrepresentation. I doubt anything useful will result from continuing this discussion since, contrary to my previous comments, you actually don't have an understanding of the policies that you reference, so in the interest of saving time for both of us I will not continue it further. Best, Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the reference that you feel should be preserved is merely a link to a WP:COPYVIO that has no place on WP. per WP:FICT, we really need a reference that establishes notability to keep the article.  Otherwise, you're pretty much just saying WP:ILIKEIT. -Verdatum (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The ILIKEIT link is "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." We should respect that our readers and contributors have an interest in articles and willingness to improve them.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's a policy or guideline is not the issue. The issue is that it is not a very strong argument, and does little to counter the concerns raised. -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree and again I do agree with those who think a merger and redirect without deletion would be acceptable. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:21, 31 January 2008 (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.