382:
even if she appeared only once. What if some person came on the website, and thought "I wonder what was the name of so and so from that episode where Lisa meets her match." and find that this character has no page of their own...and that the character isn't even listed in a list. This isn't
Simpsoncruft, its a general list of one time characters BECAUSE of the fact they don't require their own individual pages. Where else is that information going to be put if thats the case other than a single list? . This list is neither pointless nor is it fan based, its a general listing of characters who don't need their own page. This page is not just for the die hard Simpsons fans, the show is so well known and everyone has some fond memory of it that they'll no doubt come to wikipedia to look up some random bit of information on it and one time characters fits that bill. Thats the whole reason I made the character template, so that not only are the individual profiles easilly accessed....but the lists to the minor charactes not listed there are also ready for easy access. This isn't maintaining valid information folks, this is blatantly sacrificing the integrity of a wikipedia meta-article for the sake of cleanliness. Its not right. This doesn't conflict with what wikipedia is not at all because its all basic and valid information. What are we just going to just pretend whole characters don't exist just because they don't warrent their own page? If anything, thats against what wikipedia is. Yes, there's Simpson websites where this information can be accessed...but since when did Knowledge become a place that tells people looking for info on something to "look somewhere else". I mean..honestly. If a character that doesn't warrent their own page gets one we'll deal with it (like the case with Ling Bouvier), but deleting this whole page because its supposedly "irrelevant" is irresponsible. --
425:
every single character ever including background characters, then it'd be different. But these are characters that as stated...had an impact on the episode they were in even if it was only one. They had personalities, voices, and a purpose. The deletion of this page is a total lack of foresight and common sense. Everyone would constantly come and create either this page, or individual pages for whatever character they didn't find on here over and over again. Its stuff that was actually in the show, and had some weight so its not just going to go away. I admit that my opinion of what this place is isn't flawless, but I whole heartedly think its more accurate than the nearsighted logic behind the decision to question this page's validity.--
172:, as this really is an indiscriminate info collection. There are hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of one-off characters. For every Frank Grimes, there are dozens of characters who had one line. What about guest stars? They're one-time characters. This list could go on and on, and the point is that if none of the characters would be notable enough for a WP article by themselves, the sum of these characters does not equal a single notable article. --
151:
103:
117:. I am in no way an obsessive Simpsons fan, and in fact have never seen an episode. I couldn't tell you who the supporting characters were; however, I find this interesting, encyclopedic, and not at all cruft. Cruft would be having detailed articles on every single one-time character. A list acknowledges them in one page in the necessary detail.
381:
information. I really think more people need to take the time to really understand what the word "fancruft" means. A listing of characters who actually appeared on the show isn't fancruft, thats just general information...I can't make up the fact
Allison Taylor was actually a character on the show
424:
The fact of the matter is, is that if this place is supposed to be an encyclopedia...the deletion of this page would be a terrible waste of valid information that exists whether people like it or not. If this was a page about something that was really unecessary like complete fan created info or
411:
is longstanding policy. We can certainly discuss whether this particular article is encyclopedic or not, but it is plain wrong to say
Knowledge's mission is to include all valid forms of information. Knowledge's mission is to include those forms of information that belong in an
447:, and it says, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". I would say this list fits that pretty well, because of the phenomenal popularity of
543:
I think it is important to note that many of these one time characters played significant roles in their respective episodes, and furthermore that many of them were voiced by very notable celebrities. This, combined with
Joelmills argument, leads me to a keep.
633:. The alternative is a hellish cruftpit of articles for each one-time character, to which we do not want to return. People will insist on this stuff being somewhere, so I'd rather see it concentrated into one article. A valuable dumping ground for redirects.
327:
This article is very informitive, encyclopedic and has a purpose. Deleting it because another page has simular information is very silly. If The
Simpsons is well known enough to have articles on each of its episodes, then we shouldn't delete this article.
368:
Why on earth is this even being considered for deletion? The basis that "there's so many one time characters in the
Simpsons that it doesn't even matter" is absurd. It completely contradicts the entire purpose of Knowledge, which is to bring people
278:, AfD is now striking against the character lists it had once encouraged for fear of having individual articles on these characters. The Simpsons especially is such a notable show that these characters are probably widely recognized and notable.
740:. It could do with some cleanup, and perhaps Cecil deserves his own entry. But keep because it's The Simpsons, really, and it's huge popularity means that this kind of information will have more use than, say, my village's entry...
592:
I want you to keep this list. It is very neat. I find it troublesome that just because somebody doesn't want this article here, means we have to go through an entire debate about it. --Matthew Jones, 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
275:
791:
Disk is cheap and this article is both useful and long enough that it represents a considerable amount of someone's time. (No _real_ need to delete anything useful that isn't inaccurate, spam/vanity, or illegal.)
596:
Note that a few other people have 'voted' delete, and therefore it's not just one person. If everyone had voted keep, I or another administrator probably would have stepped in and closed the AFD early.
130:
If the list was close to complete, I would agree with your comment, but on a second thought, I think that there are more then just a couple of hundreds of one-time characters that are not in the list --
763:. "First they came for the fancruft, and I did not speak out because I didn't contribute to that list..." God forbid we start hunting for airplanecruft, because "who's ever heard of the
311:
Simpsoncruft. They don't need individual articles, they don't need a list, this is of general interest to no one outside of hardcore
Simpsons fans. Have you ever heard of
255:. I hate most lists, but this one seems legit enough. Imagine the howling if each of these got an article on their own, since that's the logical alternative. --
667:- could do with sorting in some fashion however, possibly alphabetical or by episode production order. Also merge the articles this links to into the list (e.g.
564:
this is 1 of about 5 (one time, recurring, list of characters, animals, LBGT, etc.) character lists from the
Simpsons that is about to get cleaned up... see
580:
It's lots of useful information. if it was on the main
Simpsons page I'd say delete or merge, but since it's its own page, I think it's fine. --
796:
783:
771:
755:
744:
732:
728:
per
Kiyosuki. Sums up my entire feeling of people wanting to edit out pages not relevant to THEM, but certainly informative to others. --
720:
708:
675:
659:
623:
584:
572:
556:
535:
523:
511:
499:
487:
475:
455:
429:
419:
386:
360:
348:
332:
319:
287:
266:
247:
212:
200:
188:
176:
155:
121:
107:
58:
407:
of information available." I wish people would stop inventing new missions for Knowledge, when the mission has always been to be a "💕."
565:
75:
17:
293:
74:: This list is useless since The Simpsons has hundreds of one-time characters that are not that important, it conflicts with
141:
93:
64:
261:
220:
because almost every item is referenced to a specific episode, and this article thus at least meets the spirit of
814:
36:
813:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
752:
283:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
377:
of information available. A listing of characters that actually appeared on the show, even if it was once is
551:
316:
256:
768:
52:
691:
668:
484:
345:
279:
131:
83:
545:
520:
416:
244:
79:
701:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
329:
301:
118:
49:
168:
with a fiery passion- Matt Groening is a god. With that said, I have no choice but to vote
729:
649:
613:
569:
357:
173:
78:
where it says this is a textbook "indiscriminate collection of information" and is mostly
464:
452:
341:
233:
225:
209:
780:
717:
581:
532:
508:
468:
444:
426:
413:
408:
383:
241:
185:
150:
102:
684:
496:
672:
236:
should necessarily be kept, but it weighs heavily in the balance. I rather like
229:
221:
197:
793:
741:
634:
598:
292:
Which bit of "significant" do you fail to understand. This is equivalent to
764:
472:
443:- I took a look at the "indiscriminate list of information" section of
276:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of significant others of Friends
807:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
82:. But the end result remains an encyclopedic fancrufty list.
409:
Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information
312:
228:. This does not meet that I think any article meeting
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
568:(just recently hijacked from orphan status)... -
817:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
274:I can't believe this. Between this and
294:List of insignificant others of Friends
65:One-time characters from The Simpsons
7:
24:
395:No, the purpose of Knowledge is
149:
101:
76:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
300:, snpp.com can cover this. --
1:
44:The result of the debate was
240:articles on obscure topics.
483:per nom, pointless list. --
834:
810:Please do not modify it.
797:17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
784:04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
772:13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
756:00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
745:22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
733:18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
721:20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
709:19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
676:15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
660:09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
624:09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
585:21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
573:20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
566:Wikiproject The Simpsons
557:19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
536:13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
531:I agree with Joelmills.
524:10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
512:06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
500:02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
488:02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
476:02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
456:01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
430:12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
420:15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
387:01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
361:23:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
349:23:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
340:. No reason to delete. —
333:22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
320:22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
288:21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
267:21:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
248:21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
213:20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
201:18:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
189:18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
177:18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
156:18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
122:17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
108:17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
59:02:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
284:Cæsar is turn’d to hear
469:Knowledge is not paper
767:, anyhow? del, NN" -
313:The Simpsons Archive
706:
700:
658:
622:
495:per Crystallina.
399:"to bring people
317:Danny Lilithborne
286:
265:
825:
812:
704:
696:
687:
656:
655:
654:
648:
647:
641:
640:
639:
620:
619:
618:
612:
611:
605:
604:
603:
554:
548:
282:
259:
153:
146:
144:
136:
105:
98:
96:
88:
56:
34:
833:
832:
828:
827:
826:
824:
823:
822:
821:
815:deletion review
808:
702:
695:
692:
685:
652:
651:
650:
643:
637:
636:
635:
616:
615:
614:
607:
601:
600:
599:
552:
546:
519:per Joelmills.
238:well-researched
147:
142:
140:
132:
99:
94:
92:
84:
68:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
831:
829:
820:
819:
802:
800:
799:
786:
774:
758:
753:69.138.229.246
747:
735:
723:
711:
707:
693:
678:
662:
628:
627:
626:
587:
575:
559:
538:
526:
514:
502:
490:
478:
458:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
390:
389:
363:
351:
335:
322:
306:
305:
304:
280:CanadianCaesar
269:
257:badlydrawnjeff
250:
215:
203:
191:
179:
161:
160:
159:
158:
139:
125:
124:
111:
110:
91:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
830:
818:
816:
811:
805:
804:
803:
798:
795:
790:
787:
785:
782:
778:
775:
773:
770:
766:
762:
759:
757:
754:
751:
748:
746:
743:
739:
736:
734:
731:
727:
724:
722:
719:
715:
712:
710:
705:
699:
697:
689:
688:
682:
679:
677:
674:
670:
666:
663:
661:
657:
646:
642:
632:
629:
625:
621:
610:
606:
595:
594:
591:
588:
586:
583:
579:
576:
574:
571:
567:
563:
560:
558:
555:
549:
547:CharacterZero
542:
539:
537:
534:
530:
527:
525:
522:
521:Crazysunshine
518:
515:
513:
510:
506:
503:
501:
498:
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
481:Strong Delete
479:
477:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
457:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
438:
431:
428:
423:
422:
421:
418:
415:
412:encyclopedia.
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
385:
380:
376:
372:
367:
364:
362:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
343:
339:
336:
334:
331:
326:
323:
321:
318:
314:
310:
309:Strong delete
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
270:
268:
263:
258:
254:
251:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
214:
211:
207:
204:
202:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
184:as fancruft.
183:
180:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
162:
157:
152:
145:
137:
135:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
120:
116:
113:
112:
109:
104:
97:
89:
87:
81:
77:
73:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
809:
806:
801:
788:
776:
760:
749:
737:
725:
713:
683:
680:
664:
644:
630:
608:
589:
577:
561:
540:
528:
516:
504:
492:
480:
460:
449:The Simpsons
448:
440:
404:
400:
396:
378:
374:
370:
365:
353:
337:
324:
308:
297:
271:
252:
237:
217:
205:
196:as fancruft
193:
181:
169:
166:The Simpsons
165:
133:
114:
85:
71:
45:
43:
31:
28:
789:Strong Keep
750:Strong Keep
726:Strong Keep
562:Strong Keep
461:Strong Keep
366:Strong Keep
330:Spongesquid
325:Strong Keep
272:Strong keep
119:Crystallina
730:buckyboy28
570:Adolphus79
471:, either.
358:Kaizersoze
174:Kicking222
465:Joelmills
453:Joelmills
342:Viriditas
262:WP:MEMES?
210:Anchoress
781:Longhair
765:Noratlas
718:CNichols
582:Awiseman
533:Tyrenius
509:JYOuyang
485:Strothra
467:. Also,
427:Kiyosuki
414:Dpbsmith
384:Kiyosuki
242:Dpbsmith
186:Beno1000
80:fancruft
497:Lbbzman
234:WP:CITE
226:WP:CITE
164:I love
138:-- ( |
90:-- ( |
769:Saaber
673:QmunkE
445:WP:NOT
417:(talk)
403:forms
373:forms
298:Delete
245:(talk)
198:Bwithh
194:Delete
182:Delete
170:delete
72:Delete
50:Flower
794:Bryce
742:Perks
638:Proto
602:Proto
553:Speak
451:. --
405:valid
379:valid
375:valid
218:Keep,
143:#info
95:#info
53:party
16:<
777:Keep
761:Keep
738:Keep
714:Keep
686:Will
681:Keep
669:Mojo
665:Keep
653:type
631:Keep
617:type
590:Keep
578:Keep
541:Keep
529:Keep
517:Keep
505:Keep
493:Keep
463:per
441:Keep
354:Keep
346:Talk
338:Keep
253:Keep
232:and
230:WP:V
224:and
222:WP:V
206:Keep
115:Keep
46:keep
779:--
473:jgp
401:ALL
397:not
371:ALL
302:GWO
716:-
698:)
671:)
645:||
609:||
550:|
344:|
315:?
296:.
208:--
154:)
148:|
134:mo
106:)
100:|
86:mo
48:.
703:T
694:@
690:(
507:-
356:-
264:)
260:(
55:☀
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
