Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 09:15Z 

Recurring jokes in The Simpsons

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hmm where to start with? Unencyclopedic, Fancruft, Yet another "List of XYZ" article, and badly written also --Jestix 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete . I love The Simpsons. This list has no point. Sheer listcruft. As Simpsons jokes are often nested within each other, this list is arbitrary and OR. Shrumster 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. After reading the other Simpsons articles, I'm convinced this should stay BUT must have more references. No need for net references, just reference each episode that a gag appears, and so on and so forth. It works in context with the main article. Perhaps there should be a {main} link to the main Simpsons article on top of the page. Shrumster 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well since it a Recurring lines, you will not be able to point the finger on one episode. --Jestix 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Which is why I specifically stated that each episode a gag appears should probably be referenced. Of course, we don't expect the ones that appear in every episode to be that extensively referenced, but you can count the number of episodes Sideshow Bob has stepped on a rake on more than one finger but less than ten. Shrumster 05:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Surely we have enough articles on The Simpsons by now that this article is completely unnecessary. Aplomado  talk 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. On a historical note. This page was created because of size concerns in the main article. Therefore it spun off into its own per the guidelines in Summary style. If this page gets deleted, people will start adding recurring jokes to the main article, which could lead to the FA status being taken away. --Maitch 13:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm against of keeping votes with there sole purpose of "trash-cans". Ultimately the whole wikipedia should be high-quality content, and not some FA, and a lot of super-lousy articles that are merely there because people would force otherwise their trash otherwhere! Jestix 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I followed policy. --Maitch 13:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in the policies stands, that spin-offs should not have been in the original articles first place? BTW, Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule making! WP:NOT--Jestix 14:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had several peer reviews complaining about the size of the main article before I turned it into a FA. Something had to be split. --Maitch 14:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look your argument "This should not be in the simpson article" is not a basis on "Therefore it should be in its own article". The splitted of thing is as unencyclopedic as own article as it was/would be in the Simpsons article itself". Jestix 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Maitch. -- Scorpion 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Running Gags in Friends has it's own article, I don't see why this shouldn't.  And it could be made into a good article.--Andy mci 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just a Pokémon test!--Jestix 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Face it, just because you want this article deleted doesn't mean it will be. --The Dark Side 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but im allowed to express my opinion, aren't I? --Jestix 07:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above users. --takethemud 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above users and because it seems to annoy Jestix so much. --The Dark Side 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this in argument *rollseyes* --Jestix 07:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Gran2 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Radical suggestion: the problem people have with this article boils down to "it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia."  How about creating a parallel project, "Wikitrivia", to which such articles could be moved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlFink (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment: If we're going to allow fancruft like this to have their own articles, where is it going to end? Aplomado  talk 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is not limited to paper, why limit its content? --The Dark Side 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are there hundret wikipedia pages deleted each day afer all? --Jestix 08:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because most are copyvios, have insufficient information, are blatant advertising, or contain no useful information. This article meets none of those requirements. If someone where to do a report on the Simpsons, then this article would come in handy. --The Dark Side 03:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot are no copyvios, have information, are no blatant adververtisment and get deleted nevertheless because they are simply unfit for an encylopedia. (just an example, a cooking recipy! or some character of an episode apearing only 1 time, etc.) Please make yourself a bit more comfortable with what wikipedia is! On Topic, since this article is a border case, one can discuss. But thats it, I would not expect such a content for example in the Britannica, but a dedicated book over the simpsons. --Jestix 09:13, 7 February 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.