Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Itchy & Scratchy Show


 * 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--JForget 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Itchy & Scratchy Show
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

After a Google search, there are lots of hits. However, there aren't any that make this notable. It has sources, but they're all Simpsons Episodes or DVD sets. These verify the information, but does not make the subject notable. This is just Simpsons cruft. &mdash; i said 01:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There doesn't appear to be significant coverage from independent sources, but I can't help but think there might be more sources like the interview with MSNBC that are just harder to find. 17Drew 01:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And it looks like said references have been found and added. List of Itchy and Scratchy cartoons I'm less sure about, and it may be a good idea to nominate that at some point.  17Drew 04:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that every damn character on the show has an article, it's hard to argue that this page doesn't belong. If they put as much time into math homework as they do in this crap, we'd be living on the moon eating space-pizza now. MarkBul 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Every damn character on the show has an article"? I find that incredibly offensive because the Simpsons WikiProject has worked incredibly hard in cutting down the cruft and merging pages. We're down to 50, when we could easily have over 100. -- Scorpion0422 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We know other things have articles. But that is irrelevant. As a side note, most of those should be deleted. &mdash; i said 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The article clearly passes the WP:FICT guidelines and it has a section of real world info (see: Background). -- Scorpion0422 02:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I am in the process of adding refs from IGN and Vanity Fair. That counts as two refs from independant sources and thus every guideline is satisfied. -- Scorpion0422 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Scorpion. As the article correctly notes, this is the "show within a show" that is a part of each episode of The Simpsons.  Besides being a bizarre parody of Tom and Jerry, it's always been a clever satire of gratuitous violence in film and television.  Mandsford 02:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A show-within-a-show that's more notable than most actual sitcoms. Real-world-info is easily available, and there's plenty of third-party analysis. . I'm very confident I could make this a FA someday. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm sure that some citations exist showing its impact in the real world. There are so many weak articles on fictional subjects (see the ones I've nominated above) that we don't need to attempt to delete pages on truly popular subjects. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A very notable part of the show, I see no reason at all as to why anyone should even think about deleting it. As for characters, I think the ones that are left are all notable enough and pass any sort of guidlines.Rhino131 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If any show deserves that many character sub-articles, it's The Simpsons. To quote Neil Steinberg:
 * There isn't room in 10 columns to discuss the delights of the Simpsons. So I will limit myself to one observation, based on an ad for the new movie, which opens Friday. The ad shows the residents of Springfield lined up to buy tickets. There are 48 characters behind Homer, and if I couldn't name every single one, I could name most and knew the personalities of the rest.
 * That's astounding. Most novels fail to offer up even one strong, memorable character, never mind 49. There aren't that many multi-layered, deeply nuanced worlds in literature -- Proust's Combray, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. Springfield, wherever it may be, is surely one of them. (Chicago Sun-Times. July 23, 2007. p. 20.) Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  03:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Rhino131 Reginmund 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Fee Fi Fo Fum. However, I would recommend cutting down the in-universe "history" of the characters per WP:WAF. --Metropolitan90 05:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Cut some of the summary down, add some more real-world information (which seems fairly probable that it exists, in addition to the existing real-world information), and we'll have a pretty decent sub-article. In the 20 some-odd years that the Simpsons have been on, even Itchy and Scratchy have impacted and effected the real world enough to be included on Wikipedia (which is out of the norm for most fictional topics). -- Ned Scott 05:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhino131. Maxamegalon2000 06:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. • Lawrence Cohen  06:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It has many sources and I think that the subject is as notable as any tertiary and maybe secondary character on the show. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 06:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs a copy edit, but clearly has enough OOU info. Gran2 07:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Are you serious? It's Itchy & Scratchy! - Rocket000 07:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably the most famous cartoon-in-a-cartoon known to man. Bad faith nom, who should have an anvil dropped on his head by an Irishman. Although I'd like to see a Worker & Parasite article, and one for Stingy & Battery... Lugnuts 08:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep How can you even consider not having this? Not notable? Start deleting things like this and Wikipedia will disappear up its own arse to be run by research scientists.--Egghead06 10:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Egghead06. I am serious here. -- Ekjon Lok 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A major element of an extremely notable television series. 23skidoo 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously deserving of a Wikipedia article. --Michig 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per all of the above.  Pursey  Talk 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to pass WP:FICT. Not exactly a shining article, but seems to have sufficient out-of-universe context by now. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:52, 22 September 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.