Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in The Simpsons2


 * 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. Yank sox  04:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

List of vehicles in The Simpsons
Previously nominated at Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in The Simpsons and more recently as part of Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs. Both debates resulted in no consensus, so I am relisting this here separately to see if we can achieve consensus. Please be clear and concise when leaving your recommendations. --Hetar 22:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC) C, fan trivia even as a list. Gazpacho 00:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Said Kappa on the previous AfD: fictional vehicles seen by millions of viewers. An alternative to separate pages on each vehicle.  Couldn't have said it better myself. Czj 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This appears to be a bad-faith listing. A previous AfD for this article was closed just a few hours ago. Anchoress 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to second the notion for a speedy close on this AfD. This has already been nominated twice. Czj 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The vehicles are not a particularly notable aspect of the show. Yes, this has been nominated before, but since both times were "no consensus", I see no problem in re-nominating it. --Metropolitan90 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As I understand it, it is considered bad faith to re-nom an article less than a few weeks after a previous AfD. Anchoress 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep serious abuse of the system to nominate this the day after it gets off AfD. Also concur with CzG. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not going to vote on this; although I do think it's a bad-faith nom I agree that it's probably unnecessary list-cruft and fan-cruft. BUT. More important IMO is the fact that, as can be seen by the volatility of a lot of the Simpsons articles (List of neologisms on The Simpsons is one example), I think all these nominations of articles on Simpsons minutae are a complete waste of time and energy. Because The Simpsons is a current program (in production currently), and has such a large, obsessive and computer-savvy fanbase, it's useless to remove anything from the WP Simpsons World, because every single time an episode airs, dozens of fans of the show (myself included) go to WP with the intention of checking to see if some obscure, listy fact we noticed in the episode was documented in the relevant article(s), and if it isn't, we add it, even if the same fact has been added and removed dozens of times before. This (the Simpsons' AfD nom phenomenon) is at once like trying to exterminate mice with atom bombs (wasteful, destructive, and, ultimately, useless) and trying to hold back a tidal wave with a sandbag (hopelessly inadequate). I therefore implore the community to just leave these articles be for now, because until the show's run is complete, we're just trying to empty the Pacific Ocean with a bucket, and it's a big waste of time. Just MHO, (hopefully) respectfully submitted. Apologies for all the similes. Anchoress 04:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy KEEP Had I seen this article earlier, I would have voted to delete, but it is WRONG to pop in this AfD nomination so quickly after it survived a previous discussion. Give the people who previously voted to keep time to improve this article before stalking the thing. Travislangley 05:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: To those who assert this is bad faith nom, I would ask that you please AGF, the only reason I nominated the article was because it was part of a dual listing. It should also be noted that I have remained neutral in this debate. I simply feel that we will benefit from a clear consensus (ie put this issue to bed once and for all) whether that is keep or delete. --Hetar 07:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I hear what you're saying but I think both your points are without merit. First, if you look at the recently closed AfD, many posters clearly differentiated between the two articles nom'd. Any of those editors could have criticised the double nom, and the closing admin or the nominator could have re-nommed or split the noms if having two together 'poisoned the well' so to speak. That didn't happen. Second, the only way this issue will be 'put to bed once and for all' is if the article is deleted, which IMO indicates a clear agenda on your part. To wit, a 'consensus' to keep would not preclude the article from being nominated again in the future, as can be noted by the numerous articles that are nominated for deletion over and over even after clear conclusions to keep. I respectfully suggest that you chill out on this issue for a bit, and if in 6 weeks or so you still bothered by the 'unclear consensus' of the previous AfD, if in fact you still remember this article ;-) you can submit a nice clean re-nom and no-one will be crying 'bad faith'. Anchoress 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I hear what you're saying but I think both your points are without merit. First, if you look at the recently closed AfD, many posters clearly differentiated between the two articles nom'd. Any of those editors could have criticised the double nom, and the closing admin or the nominator could have re-nommed or split the noms if having two together 'poisoned the well' so to speak. That didn't happen. Second, the only way this issue will be 'put to bed once and for all' is if the article is deleted, which IMO indicates a clear agenda on your part. To wit, a 'consensus' to keep would not preclude the article from being nominated again in the future, as can be noted by the numerous articles that are nominated for deletion over and over even after clear conclusions to keep. I respectfully suggest that you chill out on this issue for a bit, and if in 6 weeks or so you still bothered by the 'unclear consensus' of the previous AfD, if in fact you still remember this article ;-) you can submit a nice clean re-nom and no-one will be crying 'bad faith'. Anchoress 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep If this article had not been at AfD last week, I would vote "very weak keep". Is the article listcruft? Basically. However, it is cruft for one of the most popular, well-regarded, and influential television shows ever, which makes its cruft a bit more notable. However, my vote is for a speedy keep because the article just survived an AfD (albeit through lack of consensus). Do I think this is a bad-faith nomination? Absolutely, 100% not. Yet I still think it's unfair to ask for consensus on an article for which there was no consensus just a few days prior. -- Kicking222 23:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate list of minor trivia which is just the sort of stuff that we don't do here, or so policies tell us. The fact that there are no sources cited tells me that somebody sat down with pen and paper and watched the episodes to compile this, making it WP:OR. No rationale (and I use the word loosely) for keeping given even mentions any of the alphabet soup of policies there are to pick from, which argues very strongly that there isn't any basis for ignoring policy here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - Peregrinefisher 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - DXRAW 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Woman Who Sold The World 16:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above JQF 01:36, 20 August 2006 (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.