Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undercover Burns

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. (non-admin closure) SMB9 9thx my edits! 09:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover Burns[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To simply put it, the article fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:GNG:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This show has been on the air for 30 years and each episode has its own article. Bkatcher (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Not stating a position (yet)~~ but just a reply to @Bkatcher: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:OTHERCONTENT. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkatcher: Every episode having an article is not a good reason to keep. This is WP:OTHER, and is why I'm nominating the articles in the first place. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the above said:
- Keep all ~~"Treehouse of Horror XXXI"~~
- Neutral: "Undercover Burns"
- Delete the rest: per nom.

Just from a quick glance "Treehouse of Horror XXXI" seems to have enough sources independent of the subject to prove notability, "Undercover Burns" is awfully close. ~~The rest seem to be primarily sourced from press releases and tweets from the showrunners which don't meet WP:GNG.~~ TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the articles more in depth, those below bring up some good points. Also with the concurrent discussion here they should be kept. If there is a more serious problem with any of these they can be nominated individually. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I very quick look shows '7 Beer Itch' has a source from 'Variety.' 'These Dreams Denied' has sources from 'Entertainment Weekly' and 'The Daily Beast.' 'I, Carumbus' has references from 'The Yorkshire Telegraph' and the 'Belfast Daily Post.' Bkatcher (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkatcher: To start, the Variety reference is for an "exclusive clip", so that really isn't much. In These Dreams Denied, the Entertainment Weekly and The Daily Beast just lists the episode's guest stars, not giving actually in-depth coverage of the episode. "Production" in the section is literally just actors who were in the episode! Finally, in I, Carumbus, the Belfast Daily Post reference once again only gives the episode's guest stars, which is no way enough to pass WP:GNG, and The Yorkshire Telegraph is simply an interview (and the only reference other than the one from Deadline Hollywood to give actual information). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are 650+ episodes of the Simpsons and there are reviews and production info for all of them (AV Club for example reviews every episode). I don't believe any episode would fail GNG. Many probably do need cleanup and improvement though. Regardless, if users want to start a discussion about whether every Simpsons episode should have an article, it should be done somewhere else and not by selectively nominating a few here. They are either largely notable or largely not; it would be strange to say almost all are notable but these couple are not. Rhino131 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhino131: Just because every episode has an article is not a good reason to keep them. Most of these are all plot, with little to no reviews, and almost no production information. Please see WP:OTHER. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not based on the fact the articles exist, but that there is coverage enough for all of them, including these, to pass GNG. I still say keep. Rhino131 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhino131: Could you please explain how the rest of the episodes pass WP:GNG? Articles with one review (which are mostly copy-pasted) do not give in-depth coverage. The production section mentioning stills released prior to the episode's release does not give in-depth coverage. A list of people who guest-starred in the episode does not give in-depth coverage. Multiple references from Twitter does not give in-depth coverage. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Treehouse of Horror episodes always get coverage; this one has articles from Screen Rant, Yahoo and Den of Geek. If you're going to nominate a batch of articles, you shouldn't include episodes that are pretty clearly notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: I have removed the nomination for the Treehouse of Horror episode, but the other episodes all fail WP:GNG. Just because one of the seven articles shows a bit of notability doesn't mean that you should vote "keep" for the rest. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are significant differences between the articles, then you should withdraw the nomination, and nominate the articles individually. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I click on the first thing on the list and see references, it getting reviewed. Stop wasting everyone's time. Every episode of this popular show gets ample coverage s passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 16:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: No they don't. A list of guest stars, and one review does not show notability. Please see WP:OTHER. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of Undercover Burns as the first, and it clearly passes general notability guidelines, so I didn't bother looking at the rest. Apparently as the ratings have gone down over the decades its been on, not every episode gets multiple reviews anymore. Having articles for over 90% of the episodes, but not all of them seems incomplete, and nothing gained by deleting just some of them. I say let them be. WP:IAR Dream Focus 17:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: You just stated the following: "Apparently as the ratings have gone down over the decades its been on, not every episode gets multiple reviews anymore." If the episodes don't have enough coverage they aren't notable. Saying that deleting them makes the rest "incomplete" is not a reason. The articles fail WP:GNG and it's time to stop making articles for every episode of this show. And how is Undercover Burns even notable? It's production section is, once again, just a list of celebrities who guest-starred in the episode with a few reference from Twitter, and there are only two reviews in reception, the second one being a complete violation of WP:RECEPTION and MOS:QUOTE. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all not seeing any merit to mass deletion, would suggest listing them separatly if you try again. Artw (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and I would say the same at individual nominations. Den of Geek, AVClub and the ratings (much larger than some TV shows in countries with smaller populations whose episodes are notable) are GNG-sufficient, when taken in addition with the phenomenal amount of academic attention that The Simpsons has received and will undoubtedly continue to receive. If you want more, I have no doubt that foreign-language reliable reviews exist as this show is broadcast in so many countries. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:VAGUEWAVE. Nominator has also displayed a strong misunderstanding of notability guidelines in several nominations. Perhaps they could benefit from a mentorship? I don't think these nominations are in bad faith. Dark knight 2149 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkknight2149: I find the mentorship comment highly disrespectful and urge you to reword or strike. — Bilorv (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to be disrespectful. It was a genuine suggestion based on the user's past rationales. This is one example of them not fully understanding notability guidelines, and if memory serves, they filed a few of these with identical rationales in a row. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Triggerfinger_(The_Walking_Dead) is a more recent example. Dark knight 2149 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reviewing all the episodes involved in this AFD with the GNG guidelines I can't find one article that fails GNG. The articles meet significant coverage, have reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. My only issue comes in a case like I, Carumbus where 4 of the 10 sources are Tweets from Al Jean which would fall under self published and primary sources. However this doesn't compromise the article I would just suggest to the editors and article creators to include more reliable, secondary sources and to expand the production sections out. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion - I think that fans of The Simpsons should stop making articles for every episode, especially since not every show needs to have every episode an article. It is violating WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NAD. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: Would you mind rewording your vote to delete or support deletion? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got that fixed. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would be better to nominate the articles individually to allow more space and time for editors to present their arguments either to keep or delete (or other options entirely) rather than doing this kind of mass nominations. I have admittedly done some in the past, but I just think individual nominations are more beneficial. That is just my opinion though. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's why bundled nominations are almost always a fail. Chose THE WORST episode and nominate it, and we will discuss it. Otherwise, inclusionist fans of the show will just build an easy straw man and derail this with little effort. QED. (Oh, and they may be right, there could be reliable reviews for all the episodes, I am not going to check it now - again, don't bundle those kind of noms!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of these episodes seem to have plenty of coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, Undercover burns has been discussed due to not being written by the normal team, I, Carumbus recieved some coverage of it's depiction of ancient Rome and Treehouse of Horror episodes always attract coverage. The other episodes have at least 1 secondary review each. There are plenty of alternatives to deletion that should have been considered here, such as merging the content to the article on the series, something that can take place outside of a deletion discussion.

I really don't understand BaldiBasicsFan's argument that these articles fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NAD, These episodes have already aired and recieved coverage, the article doesn't predict anything, and none of these pages are dictionary definitions. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. Unlike the majority of other shows, I don't think an episode of The Simpsons would fail WP:GNG as there's always going to be coverage of them. Quahog (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all notable by WP:GNG. A few of these only have one or two reviews each which is borderline. They can be expanded. Archrogue (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2020 (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.