Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (4th nomination)


 * 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 No consensus. Some of these one-time characters are more notable than others; contrary to assertions below (once the fundamental requirements of WP:V and WP:N are met), the onus is those favoring deletion to show why the article should not be kept. "When in doubt, don't delete." In the case of the Simpsons, all of these characters have assuredly been subject to notable coverage in some source; although the sourcing presently isn't perfect, this does not make a case for a policy-demanded deletion. The consensus among the community needed to delete simply isn't present here. Xoloz 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons. The first of these reasons being that their is no need to have a massively long article that lists characters that appear once in a 19 season series. Second, how is a character defined as notable enough to appear on this list? "For purposes of this list, "one-time" means they were central to an episode one time." While that is clear enough criteria, could it not be simply summarized in the article of the one episode they appear in? Lastly, many of the summaries are only one line long, which is not enough info to be considered notable. This type of information belongs in a Simpsons Wiki, rather than Wikipedia The Placebo Effect 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep First off, some of the characters appear in more than one episode, they were just CENTRAL to one episode. Some of these characters pretty notable, such as Frank Grimes, Leon Kompowsky, Jacques, Hank Scorpio, etc, etc. And, the reason they are limited to one line is because otherwise, it is very crufty. Is this more to your liking? Because that's what the page used to look like. Getting to the WP:FICT guidelines, I think the page passes because it has some real world information, as well as sources that prove notability. And for the "it's pure cruft" crowd (who will be along shortly), but if this isn't Simpsons cruft, I don't know what is. I hate to user the "Other crap exists" defense, but it did survive an AFD a couple months ago. -- Scorpion0422 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you hate to use that example then don't use it. An besides that article is currently PRODed and will most likely come to AFD when it is removed. The Placebo Effect 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Not to mention, it doesn't even have all that much info on the characters. Probably merge with the episodes they were in. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, so we decide to cut down on the cruft and removed stuff that was basically a rehash of an episode, as well as removed characters that appeared for less than a minute, and now people want to delete because of a LACK of information? If you guys think this is a better page, then I will happily revert back to it. -- Scorpion0422 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, they appeared one time, in one episode. I doubt they're notable. I mean, say you were on a jog one morning. You pass a guy, and you both tell each other "hi." You won't remember him for a long time. Kind of like that. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think it should be deleted because it is unnecessary information that can be summarized on the episode pages and on a Simpsons Wiki. The Placebo Effect 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Took the words right out of my mouth. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The list of characters is being cleaned up so that it only contains recurring characters, so a list of these one-timers should be somewhere because some of them are quite notable. -- Scorpion0422 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Such as? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Frank Grimes, star of the episode Homer's Enemy, gets 72,000 google hits, pretty good when the likes of Groundskeeper Willie get 90,000 hits. Others like Hank Scorpio (You Only Move Twice), Cecil Terwilliger (Brother From Another Series), Jacques (Life on the Fast Lane), Leon Kompowsky (Stark Raving Dad), Llyellyn Sinclair (A Streetcar Named Marge), and many more who played important roles in important episodes and should be noted somewhere. Besides, some of the articles for episodes that these characters were in are GAs (and in the case of A Streetcar Named Marge, Homer's Enemy and You Only Move Twice, FAs), so the information in those articles is devoted more to the episode, rather than the character. And I can guarantee you that if this page is deleted, the fanboys will either a) create a page for the characters or b) try and create unsourced sections in the episode pages. -- Scorpion0422 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, keep Grimes, but the others have only appeared once, and are more important to the episode then the series. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we delete it people will make bad pages is not a valid argument for keeping the article. There isn't a FA article in this encyclopedia that can't withstand a single sentence on a character, if the character is actually important to the episode. Otto4711 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Simpsons have become such an wide-ranging part of popular culture that even small cross-slices have become relevant (see Frank Grimes, above). Also can't see any purpose served by merging or otherwise chopping up this list.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see no obvious variance from any guideline or policy that would lead me to think this should be deleted. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read this quote from the last afd The Placebo Effect 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ... the arguments presented says this comes down to a bun-fight between What Wikipedia is not and Notability (fiction). This material is a very high level of detail regarding a theme which does not appear to be in common parlance, thus falls squarely into "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This has been countered with "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a List of characters." This counter argument is an incomplete quote however as the guideline goes on to say "This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself [...]" In this case the work itself is the episode in which the charater appears. As there is nothing meaningful to merge (minor characters have very little information, plot-important charaters already have more information in the parent articles) and the article title would not serve as a meaningful redirect I recomend deletion.
 * Except that, to add a third page into the bun fight, WP:SUMMARY clearly recommend splitting off articles when the parent article becomes too large. The article The Simpsons would become unworkable if all of this were added back there. I see where you are coming, but this seems like a valid sub-article under Summary Style. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 06:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then move the information to the articles that the Character has an impact in. Since these are "One-time characters" It shouldn't be hard to find the rght episodes they belong it. Just add a new section to the article and have it cited. The Placebo Effect 06:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete- as a silly and endless list.JJJ999 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weakish Keep - I would definitly have deleted the original list, but this version is a lot better. Its double standards, if this was still the previous version it would still have been deleted for "massive in universe cruft" and "no out of universe info". Yet, now this list has that, and all of the cruft has been removed, its being deleted for not having long enough summaries... Gran2 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's being nominated because the characters are not notable and this violates WP:NOT : "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The Placebo Effect 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So this "many of the summaries are only one line long, which is not enough info to be considered notable", doesn't actually mean what I think it means? They could have longer descriptions quite easily, would that then make them more notable? Or would it then be considered cruft? That's my point. But I'm changing to weak keep now, that was what I had intended to vote this morning but I was half asleep. Gran2 14:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was just to show how unnecasary most of these characters are. Although, I would have nominated this in any form just by looking at the title.The Placebo Effect 14:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable material from a notable TV series. Alansohn 06:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how a One-time Character from any TV show is notable, let alone a full list of them. The Placebo Effect 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As stated above, very notable list from a very notable TV series. I'm not sure why it's even been nominated. Kevin 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again I ask, How done "One-time characters" make a notable list? The Placebo Effect 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete by definition, they're not notable. I believe the same list for Futurama one-time characters was AFD'd. Lugnuts 07:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of characters appearing once in The Simpsons is not worthy of an article, and as such I don't see the reason for keeping this list. Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable characters from an extremely notable series are still non-notable. Clarityfiend 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't see a problem with this article. These characters are notable, as many have cult followings, like Hank Scorpio. Karrmann 10:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the onws that do can be mentioned in the episode appears in, and the list can be deleted. The Placebo Effect 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, since they only appear once, every character can be fully explained in the episode in which they appear. Redirects for the more memorable characters will help people find what they are looking for. The problem is for every somewhat notable character on this list, there are 20 that only die-hard fans remember.--SeizureDog 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing if character x or y is notable, the list is not. If Scorpio is notable, he can have his own page/subpage.  this list of (mostly trivial) characters is totally needless, and violates WP policy.JJJ999 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - list is for all intents and purposes a bunch of mini plot summaries, either of the episode entirely or of the specific scene or scenes in which the one-shot character appears. There is nothing here that should not be (and probably already is if I know Simpsons editors) in the main article. Otto4711 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Because I was unsure about the in-universe notability of some characters, I arbitrarily checked the coverage of "Gulliver Dark" in the article "Homer's Night Out", and "Toshiro", "Master Sushi Chef" and "Hostess" in the article "One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish". I am surprised to say that these characters were deemed not notable enough to even be mentioned once in either plot summary. No in-universe notability, forget out-of-universe notabilty -> delete. – sgeureka t•c 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A bit long I have to admit, maybe we don't need to include a summary for every one. Or maybe we do. Either way, the article should still be kept as it is somewhat a useful resource. 11kowrom 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is not the best argument. Otto4711 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL mentions alternative wiki's to put useful information on. There doesn't appear to be an alternative wiki for this page. Keep. 11kowrom 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? There doesn't have to be an alternate wiki for the "useful" argument to be bad. Otto4711 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * says "hi" The Placebo Effect 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Some of these characters are notable and have appeared in more than one episode. It has some real world information, as well as sources that prove notability. Moreover, these characters have cult followings as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That explains a few of the characters, but what about all the other ones like sgeureka mentions above? The Placebo Effect 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they appear in more than one episode then they should not be on a "list of one-time characters" in the first place. Otto4711 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take a look at the lead to find out why they are on the one time list? Some have only appeared in other episodes briefly and were not central to that episode. Have you even read the article?Rhino131 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, why can't they be summarized in the episodes they belong in. The Placebo Effect 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I was actually refering to Otto4711's comment about why they are on the list if the appear in more than one episode. Sorry for any confusion. As to your question- its much easier to have everying in one place than in different episode articles. I guess that for some characters that would work, but to have every character in an episode page, it would not work. That is just my opinion though, ask other people who are much more serious wikipedians then I and they will give you a more deatailed answer.Rhino131 23:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As stated many times above, more notable characters can be included in the relevant episodes, non-notable characters don't matter. Madgenberyl 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article passed three discussions already (the last with a clear "keep") and concerns characters on arguably the most successful animated show of all time. Collectively the characters therefore as a list have notability and due to the show's ongoing popularity readers will be interested in this easily verfiable list and editors will be willing to improve it.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * actually last time their were 10 keeps, 9 deletes, and 2 splits/merge, which is not a "clear 'keep'" but rather a "no consensus". And just because they are one-time characters on an show does not qualify them as notable. If they truly are notable, then they can be mentioned on the appropriate episode page. The Placebo Effect 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, as detailed above. • Lawrence Cohen  16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * which reason noted above? you need to be more specific in your reasons The Placebo Effect 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please state why you think that a list "One-time characters" is notable. None of them are individualy notable, so why as a group are they notable? The Placebo Effect 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You just answered your own question. Individually, no, but as characters in an extremely notable series such as The Simpsons, then yes. 23skidoo 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The notability of The Simpsons does not confer notability onto every single character who strolls across the screen for two seconds, even if eleventy-hundred of them are all bunged together on a list. Otto4711 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as a reasonable and notable list. Per my comment directly above, individually the characters aren't necessarily notable. Taken as a group, they are. I am also citing the fact this article has survived multiple AFDs in the past. If I may also comment, I do believe The Placebo Effect's challenging of people's Keep votes is a violation of Wikipedia policy with regards to conduct connected with the AFD process and I recommend he/she investigate to make sure a violation is not in fact occurring. 23skidoo 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am asking them to explain why they voted keep which they are supposed to do accourding to this The Placebo Effect 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for those who are saying to put the notable characters into the episode summaries and delete the list, is there any particular reason to do this? You probably could do that type of action with almost any Wikipedia list, but what would be the point of that action?  Citi Cat   ♫ 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * THe point of that action would be to put the Character that appears once in a place where more can be described and should fit in and belong better rather than a long list profling them all in one place. The Placebo Effect 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There appear to by plenty of articles very similar to this one. If the consensus turns out to be delete (which it shouldn't, as i have said above) then the same would have to be with List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, List of South Park families, List of Narnian creatures, List of characters in the Harry Potter books, List of Sesame Street characters, List of minor characters from Recess, and many many other articles as well. Quite a hefty list, don't you think? 11kowrom 21:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how big the list is, if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, then it should, and eventually will, be removed. The Placebo Effect 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The simpsons are very possiblly the best known show since the golden age of television in the 1950's. It is also a known fact the Simpsons is a very popular show because of all the characters (however one-time) and guest stars in manages to include and give a real personality to, for lack of a better term. Many of these characters are notable, as they have gained a cult following and stuff like that. Some of the characters may not be as well known as some others, but Wikiproject Simpsons has been working hard to keep the really minor and one time characters off the list, so it does not get to long or hard to understand. If we need to be even more strict about what to include, then I guess we can do that. So yes, a strong keep, and yes, they are notable- but for God's sakes, nobody ask me why I think they are notable like what has been done for everyone else. Just live with the fact that I think the way I do. Rhino131 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Just becuase this show is popular doesnt mean these people are: Notabilty is not inherited. Also just becuase there are other articles like this isnt a valid argument foreverDEAD 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I said the show was popular partly becasue it manages to have all the characters. Look it up, I'm sure there are refrences for that statement.Rhino131 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Many "keep" voters claim these characters are ever-so-notable.  Well then, where are the reliable sources?  The citation of "Washington Post" isn't editor-reviewed news content, it's a transcript of reader-submitted comments from an online discussion led by a self-described "Simpsons junkie".  There's one thing from the IMDB which anyone can edit (not fact-checked), and one item from the TV portion of the International Gaming News website (I'm not sure how much credence to give that site).  The rest of the refs cite commentaries on the Simpsons DVDs, and those certainly aren't independent sources.  I suspect these voters mean "noted a lot on fan forums", which provide no basis under WP policy for a claim of notability. Barno 23:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on-the-fence when it comes to this article, but some characters, like Mr. Bergstrom and Frank Grimes, have received analysis in scholarly (or at least semi-scholarly) works. Of course, the same can't really be said of all the characters listed. Zagalejo ^  ^  ^  23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they've received substantive coverage in reliable sources then they would qualify for individual articles. Their notability or analysis of them doesn't warrant an article on all one-shot characters. Otto4711 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Most Keep voters here (and I don't mean to offend by this) are simply voting to keep under WP:USEFUL. A list of one shot characters shouldn't be included, its totally unessary, imagine if every series had a page like this, we would be up to our knees in nonotable crap. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Yes it is an endless list that is probably not even viewed for reference purposes, but then again, The Simpsons is famous for its use of one-time outlandish characters. Reginmund 00:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per 23skidoo. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Major characters in a barely notable series would not be notable enough for a list on wikipedia, but the Simpsons are so notable that a list of (not all) one time characters is.--victor falk 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No show is notable enough that one charcters deserve a list on Wikipedia. The Placebo Effect 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that no show is or that no show could possibly be ever that notable?--victor falk 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean that no show is notable enough to have a list of One-Time Characters. The Placebo Effect 02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment From reading the long list of comments, it seems that the real argument here is what is notable and what is not in dealing with TV shows. The reason the debate is so heated is because Wikipedia doesn't have clear rules on what is or isn't when dealing with a TV show. So, assuming we come with a conclusion to the argument, Wikipedia's rules for notability concerning TV shows like the Simpsons should be amended appropriately. 11kowrom 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to say I personally feel this page is very well done, looks awesome, and is very useful. I found myself reading it and thinking "hey, I remember that... cool".  But on balance that just isn't enough to meet wiki standards.  Sorry.JJJ999 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, it is a lot better than other chatacter lists I've seen. But the fact that it is "One-time Characters" is what drives me to nominate this for deletion. The Placebo Effect 02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Would it help to recall Wikipedia's fundamental definition of notability? A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There does not seem to be any reason to hope that any of these characters, singly or collectively, would meet this standard. Sure, the show is notable, but one-time characters are not. Sure, they may have been mentioned by reliable secondary sources, but they have not received significant coverage.--Yannick 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess I really don't care about this article as long as List of characters in The Simpsons is allowed to stay, since most of these one-shot characters are already mentioned there. We could just use that page to index them and link them to their respective episode articles, where we could discuss them in more detail. Do any deletionists have a problem with that page? Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  06:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Gran2 and I were going to eliminate all of the one-timers from the characters page and only list those that have appeared in 2 or more episodes because the list of characters is pretty big and is a complete mess. Then, we were going to have the List of characters and list of one-timers be sort of "sister lists". -- Scorpion0422 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is good cruft. Crufty 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC) — Crufty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Crufty is a one-time character, geddit?
 * Comment Good cruft? Clarityfiend 07:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly. As User:JJJ999 says, it's well done, looks awesome, and is very useful.  Per WP:IGNORE, we should be accepting of work which adds such value.  Crufty  —Preceding comment was added at 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how his name is "Crufty." :)  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Somehow characters in 1/400 episodes do not seem notable. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I repeat Notability is not inherited. This means that just becuase TV show X is notable doesnt mean the chracter A is notable becuase it was in that notable show. So far i have yet to see any relible source, any valid reason for keep. ForeverDEAD 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and I have yet to see any valid reason to delete, but that dosen't matter since its not our call whether this gets deleted or not. Also, its not that the tv show is notable, many of these charactes are notable in their own right. And like I said before, the show is popular and known partly because of all the characters it can include. Rhino131 22:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if many of these Characters are notable, mention them on the episode page that theu came from. And almost every deletion argument has been valid and stated a reason. The Keeps that just say notable aren't good enough because one word isn't enough to explain why this article is notable. And again, it does't matter if the Characters that only appear once make the show popular, they aren't notable and don't deserve a list. The Placebo Effect 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats just your opinion, so don't act like you have a reliable resource to back that statement up. Rhino131 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which part of my statement? The Placebo Effect 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) To Placebo's defense, it's not his opinion. Notability (fiction) says "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." And this article still fails to list any but two reliable secondary sources (for exactly two characters). And this article lists, what, hundreds of characters? At the moment, the keep !votes have no reliable sources to back up their opinion of notability... – sgeureka t•c 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability (fiction) isn't a definite rule in Wikipedia. This I believe could be an exception because to an extent the show is popular because of the many characters on the show. Also, I can find secondary sources on most of the characters by searching them in google. For example, Molloy the Cat Burglar has five sites that come up that aren't Wikipedia when you search it. 11kowrom 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what if the show is popular becuase it has alot of characters on, it doesnt make any of those characters notable deserving a list. the simpsons SHOW is notable not the hundreds of characters that are there ForeverDEAD 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As i said before, many of the characters do have reliable secondary sources, making them notable. 11kowrom 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion about my statement, so let me refrase it. One of the many great aspects of the simpsons is its ability to include many characters without losing any depth. I know there are many refrences to back up that statement. So, in essence, the characters make the show notable, which in turn makes the characters notable. I hope that is easier to understand. If anyone dissagres with that statement thats okay, but just because you don't believe it is not a valid reason to delete this article. Now about opinions, The Placebo Effect, you said "And again, it does't matter if the Characters that only appear once make the show popular, they aren't notable and don't deserve a list". That is an opinion, its what you think. "The Keeps that just say notable aren't good enough because one word isn't enough to explain why this article is notable" is also an opinion, your saying how you think there needs to be more information from those of us who are voting keep. Now I'm not saying its a bad or wrong opinion, but its still an opinion. Sgeureka then refrenced many WP:whatevers to support the Placebo Effects opinion. That dosen't make the opionin true, it just show Sgeureka's support of The placebo effects opinion. Just like an hypothesis in science can never be voted true, just supported by other scientists. Also, I could go into how all of this WP:crap your throwing at me is just an opinion of wikipedia, but I don't want to make this disscussion complecated. Just below this comment is an comment by Foreverdead, who says "The title alone is absurb one times characters? any sensoble person would go whats the point in a list for people who apper in one episode". That is really an opinion, and i'm sure everone can see that it is, even if they want deletion. But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves, we should just go down to the basics, some of us want the article to be kept, and others want it to be deleted. I would want keep, its as simple as that, lets not try to go any deeper into why we think that way. So don't ask me why I want keep, and I won't ask you why you want deletion. Rhino131 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I unbolded your keep since you already !voted once. And secondly, AFD is NOT a vote, but rather a disscusion to dertermine weather an artice is notable or nor. That is why the votes that just say "Notable" don't help. THey are already saying the article is notable when they vote keep, and a reason will help the closing admin to make a decision based on the strength of the arguments made by the keep and delete !votes. And if you have counter-arguments, please share them. That will elp to make your point a little stronger. The Placebo Effect 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your point was understood the first time, but that doesn't mean that a list of one-time characters (of any show) is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Let's make this a real-world example: One of the things that makes our planet notable is the many (living and thinking) people on it. Now, should wikipedia keep a list of all of them, or is it sufficient to say, yes, many people exist, but it doesn't serve much of an encyclopedic purpose to list them all other than to say that they exist; so let's just focus on the important ones? And of course nothing is set in stone when it comes to wikipedia policies and guidelines, but in the end, they have been created by consensus to determine what is encyclopedic and what is not. A couple of fans acting in opposition to guidelines (will) have a hard time persuading non-fans why WP guidelines should be ignored in their favor. – sgeureka t•c 17:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment was actually ment to end this conflict between myself and you guys, so I wasn't expecting any response. Anyway, your saying that keep already means you think an article is notable, but more information is needed to say why. Fine. I think the article is notable and should be kept because 1. all the characters make the show notable, which is why they are notable. 2. many of the characters have gained a cult following, hove become very popular among fans and the producers, writers, creators of the show, or have been analyzed by realiable sources. 3. there are many real world refrences to most of the characters, and have been used in real life. That is my thoughts, you can disagree or try to prove them wrong, or tell me that is the wrong way of thinking all you want. Also, notability is relitive, what is notable to one person may not be to another. So here are my final thoughts on the subject. I understand your views, I just don't share them. You understand my views, you just don't share them. I want keep, you want delete, its as simple as that, lets not go into deatails. Good-bye. (Oh, and I would have no problem with a list of people on the earth article. I think you should be bold and create it, and then make it a FA.) Rhino131 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeez, lets not have a fistfight here, but to elaborate on Rhino131's ideas, this is really a matter of opinion. After the decision to keep or not is finalized, Wikipedia should amend its rules so this discussion never happens again, to this article or any other. Personally, I would like the article to be kept, most characters have secondary sources. Yet, this does not clearly make them notable. This is why Wikipedia should make rules clarifying it. Peace out, i hope there is peace between you guys! 11kowrom 02:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you have yet to provide them, unless every single 1 person character can be sourced there seems to be no point to this article. The fact that theres 19+ seaons or something like that makes it stupid. Putting the characters in thier respective articles makes more sense as since they only apper in ONE episode they are only inmportant to that episode. The title alone is absurb one times characters? any sensoble person would go whats the point in a list for people who apper in one episode. I have yet to see almost any sources for keep while i have seen almost a dozen guidlines that are the standard (though there are execptions) for wikipedia. ForeverDEAD 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, some of these characters have been analyzed in scholarly sources: Jacques, Adil Hoxha, Mr. Bergstrom, Brad Goodman, Birch Barlow, Jessica Lovejoy, Hugh Parkfield, Hollis Hurlbut, Chester Lampwick, Hank Scorpio, Poochie, John, Frank Grimes, etc. They may not have received enough analysis to support their own independent articles, but it's clear that they're more memorable than the average one-shot character from a tv series.  Again, I don't really think we need this list, but the Keep voters aren't as misguided as you imply they are. Zagalejo ^  ^  ^  01:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Given: Wikipedia is going to have articles on The Simpsons.  Given:  Wikipedia is going to have articles on every individual episode of the Simpsons.  These things aren't really disputable.  Ok, so are the individual episode articles going to cover characters, even those that appear only once?  Sometimes, yes.  I can't imagine not describing Hank Scorpio for example, or Brad Goodman.  So what's the purpose of this article?  It's organizational.  It should exist to aid in navigation, because not everybody knows every single episode of the Simpsons by heart.   Especially sine it's such a long series. 68.101.22.132 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly needs to be said about these characters that isn't already said in the articles about the episodes? Hank Scorpio is a supervillain who threatens to take over the world and hires Homer to run his nuclear operations. Brad Goodman is a self-help guru who encourages the town to act like Bart. What else is there, and why can't it be said in the episode article (if it isn't already)? Otto4711 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete one-off characters aren't that notable if one episode is about them and the episodes themselves should give enough information about their one-off characters.Martin B 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not every single episode for the simpsons is included. The criteria for inclusion states that the episode must be notable. Either this should be deleted or made into a catagory. Also usefullness is not a valid reason for inclusion ForeverDEAD 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Not every single episode for the simpsons is included." Huh?--SeizureDog 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that every single simpsons episode had an article. And thats all the more reason to fit them into thier respective episodes. If you really wanted to find out about a character that apperd once you go to the episode that was in. ForeverDEAD 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge - one time characters should be merged to the episode article. The information about the character is most relevant in that article. -- Whpq 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Brief details of the character can just be listed on the episode page...no reason to have this page of all of them  C t j f 8 3  21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is a lot better than the previous version of it, and it seems like a good enough article to keep. While these characters only appeared once, they were significant in the episodes they were featured in, and one article to list them all and what episode they were in seems good.   ✗iℎi✗  (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they were significant in ONLY one episode, can't they be summarized accurately there? The Placebo Effect 02:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - To those that say one time characters are unnotable: Frank Grimes, Hank Scorpio, Shary Bobbins, anyone? Also, what if someone searched for a one-time character that appeared in more than one episode? This would be the best place to redirect to. --FlyingPenguins 03:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How can a one-time character appear in more than one episode? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...one-time character that appeared in more than one episode?? That makes no sense. If they appeared in more than episodes they shouldn't be here. And each character already redirects to this page, just move the redirect to the episode they came from. The Placebo Effect 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that Frank Grimes and Shary Bobbins already redirect to the respectiev episode they appear in. And so should (IMO) all one-timers of some notability. No need to keep a list like this. – sgeureka t•c 10:56, 24 October 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.