Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duff Beer (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The result was nomination withdrawn, meets speedy keep as no other commenters supporting deletion. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Duff Beer (The Simpsons)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't merit it's own article by a long way, I saw that there are more than 600 articles on 'The Simpsons' no way does one tv show of any kind need that many articles about it, no matter how many people on Wikipedia happen to like The Simpsons (I like the Simpsons) Restepc (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my point is that this is not important enough to warrant it's own seperate article....I know that millions of people have heard of Duff Beer via the show, but that doesn't mean it should have it's own article, it's a part of the highly notable Simpsons tv show, but it doesn't stand up on its own IMO Restepc (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation it seems that the Duff Beer brand is well known and notable at least in the usa, and not simply a random fictional product like Krusty-Os or...whatever. I'm withdrawing my nomination....as far as I can tell this page will automatically be removed in a few days, if there's anything I need/could do to withdraw this just say on this page. Restepc (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep No case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - has significant out-of-universe notability, as proven by the sources. EJF (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So who decides this in the end? an Administrator? Restepc (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends, if there is a clear consensus to keep, a non-administator may close it; but yes, normally an administrator decides whether there is a consensus to keep or delete. If there is no consensus, the article is kept. Normally the discussion will last around 5 days, although sometimes it can last only a few hours if there is a snowball consensus. EJF (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd really prefer an admin to decide this one as I suspect that a lot of Simpsons fans may just pile on the keep votes without any actual arguments....like the first two votes for example. Restepc (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:FICT? Your argument for deletion has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, it's basically "The Simpsons has a lot of articles about it, so this should be deleted."


 * Quite right. To Restepc, I did not vote and I did give an argument, the article is verifiable, has a neutral point of view and it is very notable given the amount of reliable sources available to verify and write an encyclopedic article on this piece of popular culture. EJF (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Has real world notability and passes the WP:FICT guidelines. -- Scorpion0422 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW, WP:NOGOOD. Redfarmer (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable beyond the series. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No no, that's not my argument at all, my argument is that it is not notable in itself, it is a part of the simpsons which is notable, but being a part of something notable doesn't make it notable. Restepc (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * People have tried to gain off the popularity of Duff Beer by making their own Duff Beer and marketing it (and there are sources to prove it) and have been sued in the process. That right there is real world notability. -- Scorpion0422 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, real world notability. Passes WP:FICT. Nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To EJF, I disagree.....there are plenty of sources for this because there are plenty of sources on the simpsons, but I doubt there are many or any sources about Duff Beer that do not mention the simpsons.

It is a PART of something notable, but it is not notable by itself. Restepc (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in notability guidelines does it say the sources have to not mention the primary thing which gave the article in question exposure, in this case, The Simpsons. Redfarmer (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and we've been trying to tell you that the article quotes sources outside the show. Redfarmer (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

scorpion, could you provide me with some links about that, perhaps Duff Beer is more individually noted on that side of the pond in which case I'll withdraw my nomination......travellingcar, as I specifically said that I like the simpsons I think your claims are more than tenuos. Restepc (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read anything in the "Duff beer scams" section of the article, a lot of it is sourced. As for the individual notability and your argument about everything about Duff Beer, I highly doubt that any source about Homer or Bart or Matt Groening would not mention the show. -- Scorpion0422 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I am sure Homer Simpson or Bart Simpson have been referenced hundreds of times without saying (from the Simpsons) afterwards.....I doubt....or had previously severely doubted, that there would be any sources simply saying 'Duff Beer' without saying 'from the simpsons' or something similar. Restepc (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To EJF, I apologise for saying that you didn't have an argument, I'm not familiar with wikislang and assumed you were simply making a joke....I even went to look at the article expecting to see that one of the sources was a website claiming to be from another dimension or something.... Restepc (talk) 18:24, 28 February 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.