Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons

This is copied from the front page as a query has been made on my decision. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made some comments here in bold following the (rearranged) recomendations. Don't take the "halves" too literally, by the way.  I did find that I had failed to discount GWO's pure vote in my closing before, which was a mistake.  I also failed to note in my closing that I had closely examined the previous AfD, which was also a mistake on my part.  I believe that the final consensus/argument/pseudo-vote counting still leads to "delete." -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While this is an interesting exercise, you fail to apply the same sort of discounting to the delete side. For a start, I fail to see how User:Carlossuarez46 or User:Coredesat are cogently examining the merits of this article. --JJay 14:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Excessive fancruft" is fine as a reason for deletion. violet/riga (t) 14:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As the nomination mentioned "precedent" albiet not in so many words, Carlossuarez46's is clearly a "per nom" recomendation. And while I do wish people would not use "cruft" as I think it's a bit demeaning to the editors who contribute the cruft, it is indeed a valid reason for deletion.  See Fancruft where it explains it is a shorthand term for "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research."  These rationals also are clear and concise, directly addresing the article. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that seems an extremely tortured justification to me. I do not see how you can pretend to accept precedent, or cruft as valid "votes" (based on an essay), but discount those on keep side who argue the opposite side, i.e. "notable", precedent for keeping, etc. That really smacks of a certain double standard that I would expect AfD closers not to apply. However, given our respective biases, this type of discussion is an exercise in futility. --JJay 15:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a bias, actually, and that comment was incivil. The comment that there are notable elements in a list is clearly a weak argument for keeping every item in a list.  Please do look again at the comments and their order, and read my responses to them below. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--David Mestel(Talk) 15:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel the comment is uncivil. That was certainly not my intent. However, I do believe you have applied a double standard against the keep side. In my view, you have treated the two sides very differently. That may be due to bias, or it may not. Furthermore, the "notability" argument may have been weak for keeping "every item in a list". That does not justify deleting "every item in a list". --JJay 12:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind if I add some comments of my own in italics.
 * It's a discussion, why would I mind? Talking is good.  I've added my thoughts your comments, all of which I found very reasonable.  I also think that there is a lot of benefit that comes of talking over a close like this, regardless of the outcome. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (Weak ) per nom. I'm sure this list is notable in the eyes of many strong fans of the show. But ultimately, this is not notable to causal fans (or those unfamiliar with the program). Scorpiondollprincess 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited slightly, moved word "weak" to end.
 * By your standards, perhaps "weak" should be "half a vote too". --David Mestel(Talk) 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Arg... That's a fair comment. I'd hate to end up where we're "summing up" halves, though.  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - one time characters are not notable in any show, regardless of how popular the show may be. If we're not keeping reality show contestants, or recurring game-show contestants, both of whom would have had more screen time than a one time character in a 22 minute show, then this really should not be kept. I don't care how many Simpsons cruftateers there are.  Proto ::  type  14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are two semi-notable people there, one of which already has his own article. This is not encyclopedic.  violet/riga (t) 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Entirely not notable, and characters can have their information in the articles on the specific episodes in which they appeared - in example, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Marge has more information on Otto's near-wife than this article, making her inclusion here redundant. Same applies for all characters, with the possible exceptions of Birch Barlow, who already has an article, and Terwilliger. --Switch 11:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Carlossuarez46 and Night Gyr. Lazybum 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and others above. Simpsonscruft Bwithh 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because I agree with the above, it's just containing unencyclopaedic minutiae about a television show. This belongs on a Simpsons fan site, not Wikipedia. GassyGuy 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Characters who only appeared only once in a TV series (in other words, 99 percent of all characters on all TV shows) are inherently non-notable. Massive fancruft like this unsourced list of every non-notable one-time Simpsons character opens the doors to all kinds of obsessively fannish lists. Similar lists could be made for any TV program - can you imagine a List of one-time characters from Gunsmoke? wikipediatrix 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) wikipediatrix 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nomination
 * Delete very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Argument from setting a precedent --David Mestel(Talk) 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a very good one. However it fails here as the argument is not that "to act correctly" in this case would be bad due to precedent setting, but merely that it would be a bad precedent. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that otherwise, it's a pure vote. --David Mestel(Talk) 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete where's Gerald Ford, Ricky Gervais etc - Simpsons gets so many celebrity guest appearances and none of them are documented in what is already a very lengthy list. MLA 14:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, any character notable enough for a mention can be mentioned in the article for the episode in which they appeared without loss of information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, excessive fancruft. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sets a precedent that might result in similar articles being credited for Star Trek, Gunsmoke, Doctor Who or even My Mother the Car. You can't just pick-and-choose what shows deserve a little "extra". 23skidoo 23:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Argument from setting a precedent --David Mestel(Talk) 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Strewth -- GWO
 * Pure vote
 * Keep (Speedy ) Despite being a huge Simpsons fan, I don't like this article- in fact, I voted delete on it the first time, when it was nominated for AfD two months ago and was kept by a wide margin. It's really unfair to renominate articles after such a short period of time, especially when there was a strong consensus the last time. -- Kicking222 18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited slightly, moved word "speedy" to end.
 * I considered this for a long time. There is no "double jeapordy" on re-nominations, and by Wikipedia standards two months is a long time.  A protest "vote" is of course a valid recomendation, but it still carries less weight.  Call it a "half" for simplicity.
 * It's a perfectly valid point for him to make - in his view, given the overwhelming consensus to keep in the previous AfD, and the fact that nothing has changed since then, two months is too short a period for a nomination. --David Mestel(Talk) 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is again a very fair argument to make... but for the fact that he explicitly wants the article deleted. In a slightly perverse manner, if he'd said less it may have counted more but that didn't happen. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Half of Wikipedia is unencyclopaedic minutiae. If that were a reason to delete that would set a very bad precedent. Orangehead 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am unable to extract anything meaningful from this comment
 * Keep per before. They should have individual articles, but this is a decent compromise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per last AfD, and a useful article. The Simpsons is one of the most notable TV shows, so it deserves a little "extra" more than others. -- King of ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠  22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Weregerbil, and per last AfD, and per Kicking222's views on the validity of this AfD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are notable characters here.- JustPhil[[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|15px]] 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This was immediatly after User:Switch's statement about charater's being in the episodes in which they appear, but seems to ignore it entirely. Doesn't appear to be an argument for keeping this list.  Again, call it "half" an opinion.
 * Keep, no point punishing users who don't know if characters are recurring or not. Kappa 11:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I found this recomendation very difficult to parse. If an article about, for example, the Frnka Grime's episode failed to mention that he was a one-time character, users would be "punished" in some way?  Another metaphorical "half" here.
 * Keep, the list it a textbook example of an article that conforms to WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. One-time characters is a red flag. However, for me this list is saved by the impressive parade of famous people who voice the characters. Also a good way to contain the trivia (as opposed to individual articles...) Weregerbil 20:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. i would add, however that Mary Bailey is not a one time character - she also appeared in the episode where Homer gets put in that designer prison Marge has built as a concert hall. Magic Pickle 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does not give any reason -> Pure vote
 * Keep. The Simpsons is a long running series and by that very nature will generate a large number of one-time characters. This article is a useful way to keep this information together. I am sure that Lucius Sweet cannot be considered a one-time character. He has been featured in many episodes. --Tomvox 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Only edit
 * Neutral. Its hard to say.  The Simpsons is a long-running, highly notable series, which is why it has so many one-time minor characters.  There are lists of these for many other series also, but they're drastically shorter due to the series' shorter length.  Still, it seems somewhat crufty, so I'll stay neutral.  Dark Shikari  14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)