Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Archive


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons Archive

 * — (View AfD)

does not meet WP:WEB, and the site itself contains numerous copyvios. Here's a small sample list:
 * http://www.snpp.com/other/interviews/meyer00.html
 * http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/toshame.html
 * http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/firstfamily.html
 * http://www.snpp.com/other/interviews/groening99e.html
 * http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/roundspringfield.html Sandy (Talk) 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The publicity section of the article is a claim to notability. If the creator of the longest running animated series in television history says you're a better continuity resource than his own writers, well...  And, we don't really expect other web-sites to maintain Wikipedia's copyvio policy. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep snpp.com is one of the oldest still-operational sites on the Web. While it's true that the article, in its current state, does not correctly provide references to demonstrate that the Archive meets WP:WEB, the Web site itself clearly is more than notable enough.  I would prefer to see this article be tagged as needing work on references.  Deleting it, given the notoriety of the site, seems absurd IMHO. Seventypercent 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep SNPP+"The Simpsons Archive" gets over 20,000 Google hits, and over 500 of the first 1,000 are unique. The BBC lists it as the unofficial Simpsons web site. Of the 44,600,000 Google hits when simply searching "Simpsons", snpp.com is third, only following the official sites of the film and the TV show. Smaller claims of notability: This college course apparently uses SNPP as a source (sidebar: I want to take this class!). For a WP-worthy subject, it has a rather low Alexa ranking, but note the 2,462 sites that link to snpp.com. A scholarly paper on JSTOR uses the site as a reference. -- Kicking222 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above- and the fact that they have copyvios is irrelevant. You may not like it, but you can't AfD every article you find because you dislike the subject. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And here's a rave review of the site from the American Library Association. -- Kicking222 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting because the subject contains copyvios? Holy shit, kids! We better delete Youtube! --- RockMFR 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. Good call. -- Kicking222 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in its own right. Enough said! --SunStar Nettalk 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per ShmuckyTheCat. Danny Lilithborne 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. No indication that this meets our inclusion guidelines.  Liking a website is not a good argument to "speedy keep" a good faith deletion request.  Jkelly 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per ShmuckyTheCat and RockMFR --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep received best of the Net award from about.com . Publicity section also asserts notability.  Also cited in numerous books here . FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - the copyvio can be taken out - no problem. And, it does need ot have some of the awards and citations added to it (see above arguments).
 * And a Speedy delete for every article that cites Youtube :)SkierRMH 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep because the reason for deletion is invalid. As RockMFR noted, if we are to delete articles about websites just because those sites contain copyright violation, we'd have to delete YouTube. Andrew Levine 09:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If I remember correctly, the introduction to the second edition of the book I Can't Believe It's A Bigger And Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide cited the site as a very useful reference. :) -- Nick RTalk 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Andrew Levine and Nick R. --Rubber cat 11:50, 24 December 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.