153:, and occasionally the articles on the fictional families, I don't think deletion should be the answer. An AfD crowd won't necessarily have full understanding of the Simpsons project. If it's decided to merge this or that it's unneeded, it can be harmlessly redirected to the character list. As it is, a person could navigate with this list in the sense that he doesn't know the name of the episode in which his/her favourite character appeared, or even the season of the episode, and thus opens this list to find his/her favourite character and the link to the article about the episode- thus making this list serve as an odd form of disambiguation page.
269:. This is a textbook case of how to handle the subject. Comments above regarding WP:NOt are not applicable. There is nothing indiscriminate about the subject matter here, which is linked to one of the most important shows of the last 20 years. Furthermore, the WP:NOT "indiscriminate collection" clauses are specific, not elastic. This article is not even close to the specific examples in the policy. I also think a merge is a poor idea and would greatly reduce the utility of the article since those seeking minor characters are not going to know the episode. This lists puts these characters all in one place and that's a good thing. --
203:#2, but I do think that the list is really long and would be too long if it were complete. It is not my favorite page on Knowledge, but it does serve a purpose. As long as we have this list we don't have too hunt down Simpson stubs about minor characters. I think the best compromise would be to split the list, move the information to the episode articles, and create/change the redirect so that it would go to that article. If we decide on this I will personally split the list (although it would be nice with some help from others). --
786:. I would wholeheartedly support the retention of this information, but the delete position has well-formed arguements sourced from policy while the keep side is a weakly formed arguement based on logic that ignores policy. On a personal note, I do hope that the Simpsons wiki gets formed and I'll be right there when it does.
894:
per JJay and others. Knowledge is more than just a holding place for facts, we also filter and organize those facts into unique ways (some of which are just not possible on paper), and Lists are one of those ways. Nothing about this list seems "indiscriminate", and I can't understand how anyone could
376:
Thanks. I disagree. That's not "useless cruft". It's useful information. Every serious reference work should have a list of all
Shakespeare and Simpsons characters. After all, they have both been going strong for quite some time. Certainly longer than many of our editors and readers. Your comment
416:
if you can't remember the play? There is nothing "indiscriminate" about these types of lists (please review WP:NOT), and "indiscriminate" can not be a catch-phrase for "I don't like it". They are well defined and useful reference tools. After all, we don't all have time to "go read the play" as you
345:
my comments, where I explain why keeping the list is appropriate. The
Simpsons is the parent work for all its daughter articles, and the episodes are just chapters in an ongoing saga. This list gives an overview of the use of minor characters across the entire series that surpasses the reach of an
127:
In this case the work itself is the episode in which the charater appears. As there is nothing meaningful to merge (minor characters have very little information, plot-important charaters already have more information in the parent articles) and the article title would not serve as a meaningful
578:
in the course of a long-running TV show is such a extreme form of trivia and cruft I can't believe we're even discussing it. There has to be a point at which we say "Just because it is
Simpsons-related, it is not automatically notable". I don't think we'd be doing this much hair-splitting over
252:
etc., etc. I can't take from this that there is unambiguous grounds for deletion so I vote keep, but clearly this article might be the catalyst for the creation of a
Simpsons Wiki. Guidelines or not, there should be limits to the detail we go into on even the most popular topics. ~
667:. How is a non-fan supposed to know that Lyle Lanley is a one-time character but Lucius Sweet is not? For that matter, is he/she supposed to search the list for "Lyle Lanley" when the character is better known as "The Monorail Guy"? This list is of interest to the fans only. --
426:"Indiscriminate" is tantamount to "put together in such an unwieldy manner that it is very difficult to use," which is what this list is. As for your example, it goes back to Brenneman's point a while ago -- The chance of someone knowing Reynaldo without knowing about
394:
for the aftermath of Duncan's murder. (Or, I'd go read the play itself.) You can pretend that an indiscriminate character list is a result of scholarship, but really it is raw notes stapled together with no context. (By the way, I've fixed the indentations for you.)
727:, or something like that. The fact that a character appeared one time is far too specific a criterion for a useful list. You might as well have a list of characters who wear green hats. A list of minor characters is quite useful and I believe already exists somewhere.
48:. The article, as it stands, is perfectly reasonable; most of the previous reasons for deletion (eg excessive detail) are invalidated. The only other argument here is screeching about "notability", despite the fact that the article clearly fits within
79:
895:
argue that this page should be deleted - what is the harm? Does it make
Knowledge look bad? Does it violate one of our core principles? Does the fact that this about a fictional television show somehow make it less worthy?
73:
494:. If I understand it correctly, the purpose of these type of lists is to house minor characters in a central location rather than have seperate articles for each one. That sounds like a logical solution to me.
305:. The rest of your points regarding redirects are nonsensical given that you are arguing for deletion of the material rather than a merge. The list is a convenient resource as a standalone per the guideline. --
860:
More to the point, what are the sources used to create this list? Looking over the article talk page and even the last deletion discussion it appears that characters are put here based upon
907:, this is notable since many of these are guest appearances by celeberties. Merging it in with the main article would be a bad idea since it'd simply lead to an overlong main article. --
215:. While they are funny, one time characters still aren't notable. I suggest (if it's not made already): a Simpsons Wiki for this. It doesn't belong on the regular Knowledge, period.
503:
Sorry to be a broken record, but there is nothing in the guideline about "central location" but instead in "the work itself" as where these whould be kept. That's the episode. -
736:
I've made a few responses to above, but they all say the same thing. The guideline clearly says that these characters belong in the related work, why is that being ignored? -
622:
What do you mean, detailed write-ups? If you're asking for character stubs, wouldn't that require a merge? (In other news, I'm saddened to learn that
Wikipedians seem to think
851:
was of cultural significance would be trivial to substantiate simply by (as an example) counting the number of published academic works. Where are the published works on
635:
Scratch what I wrote above. Upon looking at the list one more time, I find it as cumbersome and crufty as the one in discussion. What we need is a "List of celebrities"
923:
911:
899:
884:
817:
805:
777:
765:
746:
731:
711:
671:
647:
630:
617:
600:
591:
566:
539:
513:
498:
482:
462:
438:
421:
399:
381:
371:
358:
336:
309:
296:
273:
257:
219:
207:
191:
177:
162:
139:
97:
60:
278:
I'm curious how this is a "textbook case" when the suggestion of "keep" contradicts that guideline? As to finding the characters, the likelihood that someone will
547:, it's still excessively crufty. One-time characters that never appear again are not notable and do not need to be documented here. Take it to a Simpsons wiki. --
250:
If the subject, a character in a TV show, say, is too limited to be given a full article, then integrate information about that character into a larger article.
639:, instead of the characters they voiced or the episode numbers of their appearance. That way, very casual fans could easily look up, say, the characters that
679:
is their notability due to the fact that they are one-timers? if not, but due to their celebrity voices as suggested by another editor, why wouldn't there be
367:
asterisks instead of three to have the right indentation. I've put six for my comment so that it would look right should you decide to correct yours.) --
346:
article on an individual episode. It is perfect as a jumping off point to the episode articles if greater detail is required. A very similar example is
758:
encyclopedia. A separate article seems like a reasonable organizational choice, but obviously it could be merged wherever regardless of the AFD result.
837:
286:
is pretty close to zero. A whole swag of redirects from the name of the character to the parent episode solves that problem easily enough, as well. -
89:
overturned a previous deletion of this article through AfD. The matter is relisted here for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I
354:
opinion in this; my thinking is based on careful examination of the best way to organize encyclopedic information on notable topics at wikipedia. --
121:"Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a List of characters."
704:
458:
characters really don't need any mentions at all outside of the episode articles. This article is quite redundant with the episode articles.
700:
150:
115:. This material is a very high level of detail regarding a theme which does not appear to be in common parlance, thus falls squarely into
363:
Ugh. That list you gave is a useless cruft. And it doesn't matter that it's about Big Bill
Shakespeare. (By the way, you should've put
606:
596:
I would think that the claim to notability comes from the fact that most of them are voiced by celebrities. So change of title maybe? ~
684:
107:
opinion in this as the deleting admin, my careful examination of the arguments presented says this comes down to a bun-fight between
696:
680:
66:
347:
724:
692:
584:
108:
17:
580:
266:
112:
762:
430:
is nearly zero. It is much, much more likely that someone would ask, "What was the name of the servant to
Polonius in
412:
You are missing the point. Where do you go to find a summary listing of all the characters from all plays? Or to find
523:. Didn't I already vote on this earlier? This is a good article to find famous one-time characters on The Simpsons.
829:
Useful - To whom, and by what metric? If this is just an opinon then give us some examples of what you'd consider
938:
875:
737:
504:
327:
287:
168:
130:
36:
937:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
158:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
611:
Although it is in need of detailed write-ups, it is much more worthy of existence that the list in discussion.
574:. The article's own title proclaims the non-notability of its subject. A list of characters who only appeared
552:
322:
is also seperate from the article. What does "the
Simpsons is long" mean anyway? The guideline clearly and
759:
623:
318:
my comments, where I explain why merging is not appropiate and creation of a redirect to parent episodes
302:
242:
Plot summaries - Knowledge articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction
627:
597:
471:
254:
57:
847:
Of significance on a cultural level - Sorry to be repetative, but based on what? A claim that the
814:
801:
708:
562:
154:
588:
728:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
663:
as per
Brenneman. This list is useless for a layperson who wants to look up a character in
475:
459:
167:
Redirects from the charter name to the article would serve that purpose more efficiently. -
234:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons (real or fictional)
188:
187:
The Simpson's are notable characters that appear on the show once then nevermore are not.
53:
823:
787:
557:
549:
495:
491:
479:
386:
Useful information!? If I wanted to know more about the drunken porter's monologue in
200:
49:
199:. I have thought about this for a while now. I still believe that it is an example of
908:
896:
813:- The information is useful and relevant, and of significance on a cultural level. --
774:
536:
390:, do you really think I'd go to that list and look for "Porter"? No, I'd go look in
245:
229:
216:
123:
This counter argument is an incomplete quote however as the guideline goes on to say
754:. Useful information about an important cultural topic that should appear even in a
920:
867:
861:
668:
644:
640:
614:
435:
396:
368:
204:
840:
on Google, for instance, I'm not seeing much substance. What is this relevent
326:
states that the appropiate place for minor characters in in the parent work. -
350:, which is full of minor one-off characters. I would point out that I have no
301:
Does not contradict anything because the Simpsons is long. That's why we have
94:
238:
Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted
80:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons
418:
378:
355:
306:
270:
919:
please per jjay and others this list is noteworthy and too long to merge
524:
413:
149:
While there is some conflict between this and the episode articles, and
391:
74:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons
833:
useful to make us better understand what your judgment is based upon.
125:"This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself "
836:
Relevant - Again, how are you making this decision? Looking for
931:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
822:
Can you expand on this? One of the keys to a valid argument is
117:"Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
434:?" For this kind of question, this list would be useless. --
282:
know the name of the episode but will know that they were in
864:
alone. I thus amplify my original "delete" with the rider
705:
List of Harry Potter characters who appear in only one book
773:
I agree wholeheartedly with Brenneman and wikipediatrix.
701:
List of Biblical characters who appear in only one verse
691:? Moreover, if we have the precedent of this we'll have
881:
743:
510:
333:
293:
174:
136:
86:
826:, and these are vauge enough it's difficuty to do so.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
941:). No further edits should be made to this page.
685:List of three-time characters from The Simpsons
697:List of one-time characters from Sesame Street
681:List of two-time characters from The Simpsons
67:List of one-time characters from The Simpsons
8:
866:"and if kept, remove any character without
725:List of minor characters from The Simpsons
693:List of one-time characters from Star Trek
585:List of one-time characters on Green Acres
581:List of one-time characters on Gunsmoke
637:ordered by the name of the celebrities
224:Conflicting guidelines, defaulting to
7:
151:List of characters from The Simpsons
607:List of celebrities on The Simpsons
24:
348:List of Shakespearean characters
109:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
341:Yes, exactly. Please actually
267:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
113:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
1:
128:redirect I recomend deletion.
119:This has been countered with
626:is worth only two lines.) ~
314:Err, what? Please actually
924:17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
912:14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
900:13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
885:23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
870:naming it as non-recurring"
818:16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
806:18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
778:09:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
766:05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
747:23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
732:22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
712:21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
672:20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
648:21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
631:21:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
618:21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
601:21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
592:20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
567:20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
540:19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
514:23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
499:19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
483:19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
463:18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
439:19:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
422:14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
400:14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
382:02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
372:02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
359:00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
337:23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
310:23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
297:23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
274:18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
258:18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
220:18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
208:17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
192:17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
178:23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
163:17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
140:16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
98:16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
61:01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
958:
572:Strongest possible Delete
246:WP:1SP#Check your fiction
197:Split to episode articles
50:our guidelines on fiction
934:Please do not modify it.
699:etc., and the analogous
32:Please do not modify it.
320:for the character names
624:Maria Grazia Cucinotta
303:Category:The Simpsons
838:"one time character"
240:, but counters with
236:with the disclaimer
760:Christopher Parham
377:looks good btw. --
52:. As such, keep.--
862:original research
609:already exists.
565:
161:
949:
936:
883:
878:
868:reliable sources
844:is the question.
797:
794:
791:
745:
740:
561:
555:
533:
530:
527:
512:
507:
335:
330:
295:
290:
284:only one episode
176:
171:
157:
138:
133:
34:
957:
956:
952:
951:
950:
948:
947:
946:
945:
939:deletion review
932:
880:
876:
804:
795:
792:
789:
742:
738:
628:trialsanderrors
598:trialsanderrors
553:
531:
528:
525:
509:
505:
332:
328:
292:
288:
255:trialsanderrors
173:
169:
135:
131:
103:While I had no
87:A DRV consensus
70:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
955:
953:
944:
943:
927:
926:
914:
902:
889:
888:
887:
873:
858:
857:
856:
845:
834:
824:falsifiability
815:Commander Zulu
808:
800:
780:
768:
756:discriminating
749:
734:
714:
709:Carlossuarez46
674:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
569:
542:
518:
517:
516:
485:
465:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
260:
222:
210:
194:
182:
181:
180:
155:CanadianCaesar
143:
142:
129:
84:
83:
77:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
954:
942:
940:
935:
929:
928:
925:
922:
918:
915:
913:
910:
906:
903:
901:
898:
893:
890:
886:
882:
879:
874:
871:
869:
863:
859:
854:
850:
849:series itself
846:
843:
839:
835:
832:
828:
827:
825:
821:
820:
819:
816:
812:
809:
807:
803:
799:
798:
785:
781:
779:
776:
772:
769:
767:
764:
761:
757:
753:
750:
748:
744:
741:
735:
733:
730:
726:
722:
718:
715:
713:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
675:
673:
670:
666:
662:
659:
649:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
599:
595:
594:
593:
590:
589:wikipediatrix
586:
582:
577:
573:
570:
568:
564:
560:
559:
556:
551:
546:
543:
541:
538:
534:
522:
519:
515:
511:
508:
502:
501:
500:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
464:
461:
457:
453:
450:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
420:
415:
411:
401:
398:
393:
389:
385:
384:
383:
380:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
357:
353:
349:
344:
340:
339:
338:
334:
331:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
294:
291:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
272:
268:
264:
261:
259:
256:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
221:
218:
214:
211:
209:
206:
202:
198:
195:
193:
190:
186:
183:
179:
175:
172:
166:
165:
164:
160:
159:Et tu, Brute?
156:
152:
148:
145:
144:
141:
137:
134:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
100:
99:
96:
92:
88:
81:
78:
75:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
933:
930:
916:
904:
891:
865:
852:
848:
841:
830:
810:
788:
783:
770:
755:
751:
720:
716:
688:
676:
665:The Simpsons
664:
660:
641:Phil Hartman
636:
610:
575:
571:
548:
544:
520:
487:
467:
455:
451:
431:
427:
387:
364:
351:
342:
323:
319:
315:
283:
279:
262:
249:
241:
237:
233:
225:
212:
196:
184:
146:
124:
120:
116:
104:
90:
85:
82:28 July 2006
45:
43:
31:
28:
643:voiced. --
476:Wickethewok
460:Wickethewok
417:suggest. --
76:21 May 2006
782:Reluctant
689:ad nauseum
324:explicitly
232:also says
189:Whispering
877:brenneman
739:brenneman
563:talk. ^_^
506:brenneman
496:RFerreira
480:Slowmover
472:brenneman
329:brenneman
289:brenneman
170:brenneman
132:brenneman
909:Barberio
897:Turnstep
855:subject?
775:Eusebeus
456:One time
414:Reynaldo
352:personal
217:RobJ1981
105:personal
921:Yuckfoo
707:, etc.
677:Comment
669:Lazybum
645:Lazybum
615:Lazybum
492:WP:FICT
436:Lazybum
397:Lazybum
392:Macbeth
388:Macbeth
369:Lazybum
213:Delete'
201:WP:FICT
91:abstain
784:delete
771:Delete
763:(talk)
661:Delete
545:Delete
468:Delete
452:Delete
432:Hamlet
428:Hamlet
230:WP:NOT
205:Maitch
185:Delete
721:merge
248:says
95:Xoloz
16:<
917:keep
905:Keep
892:Keep
853:this
811:Keep
793:Nate
752:Keep
729:Deco
717:Move
605:The
576:once
550:Core
537:Talk
521:Keep
490:per
488:Keep
474:and
470:per
419:JJay
379:JJay
365:five
356:JJay
343:read
316:read
307:JJay
271:JJay
265:per
263:Keep
226:Keep
147:Keep
111:and
46:keep
831:not
802:(T)
790:Big
723:to
719:or
583:or
554:des
478:--
280:not
842:to
796:37
703:,
695:,
687:,
683:,
613:--
587:.
558:at
535:|
454:-
395:--
244:.
228:.
93:.
56:|
54:SB
872:.
532:P
529:I
526:J
58:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.