Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional places on The Simpsons

 * – (View AfD) (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) 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):
 * Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Religion in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/List of products in 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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) 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not that I don't appreciate what you're saying; when I first came here, I was aghast at how many articles had some mention of "The Simpsons", although I have seen that the system takes care of itself... thus, if an article about Lee Harvey Oswald somehow has added to it a mention of his name by Lisa Simpson, that silliness is removed.  As it is, The Simpsons is one of those cultural icons that has been around for 20 years (counting TU) and has a special status on Wikipedia, even by Wikipedia's TV-Land standards.  Mandsford 12:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There *are* books and guides to the Simpsons, so I would say there isn't much reason to delete here. I suggest addressing your problems in another way than deletion.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list.  Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep.  Useight 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. (n.b.: I created this page.) 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:
 * These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
 * 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?
 * 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 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all Lists are discriminate and easily verifiable, and clearly identified as fiction. And I don't like the Simpsons either. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep How is this indiscriminate? It only has 13 entries, all cities and larger geographical locations, with details on all of them. If it were just a list of every place mentioned in the Simpsons that does not exist in the real world (including stores, streets, etc.) I could understand "indiscriminate" as a reason, but not for this. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate as in "There's an article on places in The Simpsons! Where will it end?" 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) 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding my creation of this page: Originally, minor places like Bronson, Missouri and Humbleton, Pennsylvania had their own articles. In January 2006, I merged them together into this single article, to substitute one slightly crufty article for several very crufty pages. szyslak  00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable list for such a successful series. This list is an alternative to having individual articles on all these fictional places.  --musicpvm 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Wikisimpsons_Central, where articles such as these WP:OR-breaking fancruft actually belong. Regardless, the outcome of this very similar case should make a good reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spells_in_Harry_Potter_%282nd_nomination%29 Tendancer 01:26, 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 01:10, 18 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.