Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of neologisms on The Simpsons


Delete I'm not sure where to start with this one. It seems to be a list defined by very spotty and vague critera. The start of the article "Few of the following would qualify as neologisms from a strict lexicological perspective" - so why have neologism in the title? More than that, I see no way that it can claimed that anything but two or three of those are actually notable or used in the real world without engaging in original research. I'd also argue that it fails under WP:NOT as the vague wooly criteria means that it's pretty indiscrimate in what could be included Charlesknight 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Revise On the one hand, I think it's true that lots of the article is pointless - listing Frink's phrases or Burns' mis-words does no good to anyone. On the other hand, there are a few entries that should definitely be inclued in any tome on The Simpsons, such as Cromulent and D'Oh, which have a life beyond the show (and I think are real neologism?) So I would propose that the page stands but is radically revised to include only words which meet a chosen criteria, and I think "words or phrases which are used more than once" would be suitable, and would leave only the sorts of things that people are likely to want to look up --Mortice 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked the article, and the ones I think should be saved are:
 * Cromulent
 * D'Oh
 * Diddly (or some reference to Ned's phrasing)
 * Don't have a cow, man (ok not a neologism - perhaps rename the page?)
 * Embiggen
 * Homersexual
 * Jebus
 * Kwyjibo (for its interesting background)
 * ...and then police people adding others inappropriately --Mortice 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd say the criteria is pretty clear, it's a unique word or phrase used on the Simpsons television. Given the extensive cultural pervasiveness of this show, it certainly helps to have a list of words unique to it. I don't know if neologism is the right term for it, but that would be a cause to rename, not delete. FrozenPurpleCube 22:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The simpsons has an extensive cultural pervasiveness, but ever single throw-away line or single word? pull the other one... --Charlesknight 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every single one? Nope, but then we don't need to keep every single one to keep this whole article.  See above, for some that I would say would qualify as an article in itself, or within the episode.  So, the information would be kept somewhere.  So, is there anything wrong with having it here as well?  No, because redundancy is part of good presentation.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep but shorten There are certainly a lot of highly notable neologisms created on the show, and I absolutely love the idea of this list existing. With that said, I completely agree that it's far too long and contains too many words/phrases that will never be heard again. Yet I think it would be terrible if WP lost this article altogether. -- Kicking222 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Anchoress 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and shorten as above. -- Will Mak  050389  00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and sorten horten - D'oh  SkierRMH, 02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube --Arvedui 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unbelievably trivial. Not everything having to do with the Simpsons needs an article, believe it or not. Recury 02:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Prune mercilessly, as I said on the talk page month ago. This article is in dire need of shortening.  The only entries on the list should be those for which a source outside the show talking about the term can be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep as per manticore --Isolani 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per manticore.  #   Ido50  ( talk  to me), at 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per manticore, I agree. --Jimmy C. 05:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as mindless trivia based on mindless 'entertainment'. The Crying Orc 09:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune a LOT, and then police like mad. Natalie 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cut down per Natalie. The article should only contain notable phrases (read: with multiple substantial third party coverage, as usual). Sandstein 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Prune and keep, per Night Gyr. Mostly non-notable fancruft as it is now, but there are some phrases worth saving. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I just found this article after a google search on "debigulator"
 * Prune and keep per everybody else. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune, as everyone else says -- but I think we could have the "major" words (i.e. the famous ones that have a life of their own outside the show, like "Yoink", "Cromulent" and "Car Hole") in one section, each with its own sub-heading, and the generic rest in a three-column table with each row containing the word, a brief definition, and the episode it was used in. Probably also change the title, since in many cases the show didn't create the word... Dave-ros 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I said before, maybe instead of keeping the lesser words in a table, have some spiel in the intro about the huge number of compound, nonsense and quasi-words the show comes up with (and list a few of them), and have the main article for the notable words. Dave-ros 11:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and prune. Remove what not became popular or is not important, keep the list and those important. --SoWhy Talk 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but revise, rename and prune. Cromulent, Yoink, D'oh and Jebus are very culturaly pervasive. -  Swi tch t 02:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and heavily prune - deleting it will only result in a huge number of broken redirects and a bunch or even-more-crufty articles appearing. I'd also suggest including a highly visible link (or recommendation of some kind) for one of the various Simpsons Wikis at places like wikia, where the crufty stuff belongs. BeefontheBone 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into The Simpsons. 38.100.34.2 01:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the point of this article is notability. Matty-chan 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a perfectly cromulent article.--Greasysteve13 10:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Arm 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Prune There are many more entries that are less important that would never get deleated. Moreover, Though it may be useless to some, may be important to someone else.  For example, someone who is doing a report on the impact of Television on modern languages may use much of the information here to prove there point.  There dose need to be a more established criteria though.  As for sources, I would recomend that (1) The episode the word neologism was given (though in some cases it would be almost all of them) and (2) Any external source that the word was used in every-day speach.


 * 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.