Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons Nomination 2

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 May 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Cbrown1023 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in The Simpsons

The contents of this article do not belong in an encyclopedia, it is mearly simpsons trivia. It's just a list where people get naked, and thus, isn't an encyclopedia article. Newspaper98 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous AfD discussion can be found here.)

Keep why not? I'm sure someone is interested. Although I'm not sure how you reference it.--Sandy Scott 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Interesting" does not make something encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Agent 86 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is covered thoroughly. This is one of the most popular animated programs of all time with a considerable child audience. The extent to which nudity is tackled in the programme given the present US discomfort with the subject is a strong basis for such a list. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even so, this page isn't anything like an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newspaper98 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Seems to me the goal is not to be like another encyclopedia. Plenty of information is trivial when you don't need it. See Lists of trivia. Plus, WP:NOT doesn't say no trivia. Wikipedia:Trivia is more inclusive. WarBaCoN 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Consider for a moment, would an article highlighting all instances of nudity in cable television cartoons be valid? live action cable programs? movies? video games? real life? While undoubtedly tedious to some, these would demonstrate degradation/acceptance, and give an overview in general on this much debated and culturally varied topic, and be interesting. Would these articles not grow in size and cultural exposure so that individual items might require their own listing? would they become invalid at this point? It is important to consider that some topics on wikipedia are bound to evolve backwards from more purely interesting points, finding their way to important collections, rather than from a typical root of important topic to interesting branches. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarBaCoN (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Trivial fancruft. The Simpsons are clearly one of the most notable cartoon shows ever, but that doesn't mean we need articles for every conceivable aspect of the show. Unless significant sources can be found that show that this topic itself is notable then it shouldn't be here. --The Way 07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with a suggestion to the creator to add a section regarding the "contraversies"; otherwise, well documented list. SkierRMH,08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for four-fingered bugeyed roadpaint-yellow-skinned fetishists. Danny Lilithborne 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-encyclopedic, though I wouldn't be surprised if this is kept like all the other garbage articles. metaspheres 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The Simpsons is one of the most popular, long running television series in history; it has cultural value, so of course many aspects of the show will be examined. Silly for some? Apparently so, and I'll defend your right to think so. Delete-worthy? No. Siyavash 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of trivial information. The topic of "nudity in the Simpsons" has no wider relevance relevance whatsoever (unlike the topic of Nudity in Superbowl half-time shows). Demiurge 18:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely un-encyclopaedic, and to boot this is a list and not an article. Thethinredline 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simpsons-cruft gallore! If you want to add this stuff, find your own webpage or a Simpsons-wiki. Wikipedia is not a list of all things that have ever existed, or everything to ever grace the Simpson. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very reference given repeatedly as reason for deletion makes no mention that this should be deleted (WP:NOT).. I can also quote from Wikipedia's own Help Contents, "Wikipedia has only a few limitations on what topics it covers. Recipes and how-to articles are generally not included, but just about everything else is. In which other encyclopedia do you find a list of sex positions, an article about nose picking or one about William Shatner's version of Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds? As long as an article is verifiable, informative and neutral, it has a pretty good chance of being acceptable (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some other common rules). We strive to collect the sum of human knowledge, some of which may be trivial, but nevertheless is part of our cultures and our histories. Wiki is not paper - we need not worry about space constraints.".. As such, I must continue to protest against the argument for deletion. I implore anybody to argue on these basis, not simply their opinions on the relevance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarBaCoN (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 December 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.