Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time The Simpsons characters


 * 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. While this article has been kept several times in previous AfDs, there is clearly a broad consensus that this list is non-notable. It's entirely appropriate for consensus to evolve over time and it's been almost a decade since it was last assessed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

List of one-time The Simpsons characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All in-universe fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete "One-time" says it all, this is a list of non-notable characters. The information is better off in the Simpsons Wiki or similar.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pointless collection of minutia. If there are any that are relevant search terms, it's easy enough just to redirect to the episode in question. Otherwise cataloging them can be left to a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. And, on top of that, original research. Note that it's not actually a list of one-time characters, but characters who were "central" one time. Yikes. Otherwise, I was going to see how closely this might parallel List of Simpsons guest stars. Answer? It doesn't matter; this isn't salvageable in any form. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Simpsons Wiki has this information already, here. In other words, no need for a transwiki before we delete it: this can go directly into the recycle bin.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable characters by definition. There are a number of redirects that should go to their episodes instead. Reywas92Talk 22:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. List of Simpsons guest stars is a WP:FA FWIW. BTW I could say WP:INDISCRIMINATE could be addressed by adding some content controls or something, but then we'd end up duplicating the guest-stars. ミラP 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been kept 7 times under the name List of one-time characters in The Simpsons. 165.91.13.55 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC);
 * Except the last one was nine years ago... ミラP 01:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If at first you don't delete, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The only reasonable list out of this woudl be guest stars, and there are separate lists for that. --M asem (t) 03:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Ah. Sad to see another long-labor-of-love-list bite the dust here, thanks to pesky "policies" and "guidelines". :) I even did a quick search just in case and did find more than I thought I would (AV Club, Digital Spy, Screen Rant, NME, Buzzfeed... but still, it's hard to justify). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need a list of every character who has ever appeared on The Simpsons, there are simply too many. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Worst. List. EVER.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As much of a Simpsons fan I am, this is listcruft. Many of the characters aren't actually one-time, some are recurring, so there is also a degree of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not encyclopedia worthy. Wm335td (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is obviously improper per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The nomination makes no new points and is blatantly false as it's easy to find coverage of Simpsons one-off characters such as Albert Brooks' Jacques or Lawrence Tierney's Brodka.  The topic easily passes WP:LISTN and the rest is just the usual personal opinions – WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, &c. – which are contrary to core policy. Andrew D. (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How does WP:DELAFD really apply when the last AFD was in 2010? Consensus can change, after all. DonIago (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The passage of many years demonstrates that the topic is sound. The page has been read by hundreds of thousands of people in that time and the talk page indicates that they have no complaints.  All we have in this case is a disruptive, drive-by nomination and a tiny claque of supporters.  Such ambushes and attrition are a significant cause of the decline in Wikipedia particpation as people won't invest effort when their work can be so casually destroyed without regard to the principles of natural justice such as double jeopardy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Racism has survived for many years, but I wouldn't call it sound. Just because the article has been read and there are no complaints on the Talk page doesn't mean that the list is appropriate. As for the rest of your counterargument, please read WP:ASPERSION. DonIago (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The sheer amount of people who agree that it's non-notable kind of proves your "drive-by nomination" argument wrong. If it was really an ill-considered nomination then there would be some controversy outside yourself. I'm sure people did invest time and energy into this list, but considering Simpsons Wiki probably has even more and better referenced info anyway, that doesn't really count for much.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So you can't even be bothered to understand that both of these examples are known for being guest stars, not for being one-time characters? That the source isn't about Jacques but about Albert Brooks? That they are already listed in List of The Simpsons guest stars (seasons 1–20) and described (or PRESERVED as you would say) in more detail at Marge Be Not Proud and Life on the Fast Lane? This is sad, just embarrassing. Reywas92Talk 06:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Brooks was not a guest star; he was a regular part of the production team and voiced multiple characters. The work specifically covers such characters, "in the course of this book, we remember the iconic characters".  The coverage of Brodka is likewise specifically about such characters, "The 25 Most Underrated "Simpsons" Characters".  The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN and that's why it has been kept repeatedly in the past.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia's lists should totally be dictated by listicles. But again, this underrated character is still described in the episode article! We're not scrubbing mention of this listicle author's #24 entirely! And if Brooks' multiple appearances don't count him as guest star, take that up with the guest star list and the producers who called him one. Not that I expect you to ever change your mind, just making sure others can see through this failed logic. Reywas92Talk 19:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete- This really is indiscriminate fancruft. Previous AfDs have no bearing here since the last one was almost a decade ago, when there was actually still a chance of Wikipedia turning into Wikia. Fortunately we did not go down that road. Reyk YO! 12:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a great example of an unnecessary (almost trivial) list about more-or-less cameos. Dellwood546 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki It's pretty clear that this will be axed, before this, please copy the contents to Simpsons wikia, as the main article for this category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:09, 10 November 2019 (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.