Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics in The Simpsons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (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) 08:45, 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/Religion in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on 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) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable.  References to politics require a viewer to have more knowledge of the subject than is required by most sitcoms. Mandsford 12:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And did you look for articles about this topic? I doubt you did.  Otherwise you'd have found that Google news has plenty of usable ones.  Like .  I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I think this reveals a severe problem in your methodology since you're using carbon copy deletion reasons. FrozenPurpleCube 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're using blogs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're not looking at who wrote it or where it's published. Don't confuse "Blog" with a personal publication, as they're often not that at all.  Besides, there's always  “Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture” .  Or  if you want something on Jstor.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to expand, Blogs are perfectly acceptable secondary sources if the author is a professional in the relevant area. The blogs to avoid are ones written by a non-professional about their non-notable opinion, making them unreliable. A professional for a well known publication is a reliable source. ●BillPP (talk 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak  02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable.  Useight 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as many political aspects of the show have commentary and criticism from outside sources and the DVD commentary, therefore establishing notability. Some of the cruftyness could be removed though ●BillPP (talk 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, third-party sources are the way to go. MessedRocker (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reread the comment. I said outside sources AND the DVD commentary. Including the DVD commentary as a secondary source is recommended as it includes production information and background. ●BillPP (talk 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability for "politics in simpsons".  Also, all these articles are also in violation of WP:SYNTH when you're grouping a whole bunch of stuff under a big umbrella Corpx 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Politics is one of the major themes of the show.  --musicpvm 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Radiant's excellent arguments accurately capturing the notability. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Radiant, and also because Politics plays a key part in episodes such as Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish, Mr. Lisa goes to Washington, Sideshow Bob Roberts, and even Trash of the Titans somewhat. Rhino131 16:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the key aspects in understanding the Simpsons.
 * 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. For more information, Click Here.


 * 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.