Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from 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 delete. Several arguments for keeping failed to adress the article and instead focus on the errors of renomination, on the article serving as a honey trap for trivia, the fact that "notable" elements existed within the list, or a certain undefinable "extra" something. I've also disregarded recomendations to keep from *cough* very new editors, or that were borderline nonsensical.
brenneman ^{L} 06:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons[edit]

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)[reply]

Weak Delete 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list it a textbook example of an article that conforms to WP:FICT. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete as per Carlossuarez46 and Night Gyr. Lazybum 21:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and others above. Simpsonscruft Bwithh 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive fancruft. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strewth -- GWO
Keep, no point punishing users who don't know if characters are recurring or not. Kappa 11:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep per before. They should have individual articles, but this is a decent compromise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep There are notable characters here.- Just Phil 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.