Wikisimpsons:Pages for deletion/Archive 1

Deletion discussions archive.

Discussions

Lewis omer

This page is nothing more than a redirect to Lewis' actual page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Lewis has ever had a last name, let alone the last name "Omer." So, unless anybody knows where in the show or other media this is mentioned, this page is pointless. Nick97 16:04, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

• Delete pointless redirect left from vandalism.--Cook879 16:05, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
• Delete Per nom --Doh5678 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album says Lewis Jackson is his name. /AleWi 16:29, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

I remember seeing his Simpsons wikia article which said his last name was Jackson. I never knew where that info came from though. Thanks Alewi! I'll just delete the page now then, unless anyone has any objections. Nick97 16:38, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

Confirmed! Anyway I'm not sure how long this discussion is meant to stay open, as part of the trail scheme.--Cook879 16:46, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

You can close this now. Doh5678 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

Quick question: Will these discussions get deleted completely or is there going to be some sort of "Pages for Deletion" archive? Nick97 16:57, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

Pete (Gump Roast)

Sorry Will K, but Pete already has a page. There's no need for there to be two of them, so this page could be deleted. -- Nick97 10:04, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

I moved Will K's image to the old page and moved it to Pete (Gump Roast) as per Wikisimpsons: Naming earlier.--Cook879 15:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

List of electrical products

As per talk page discussion (see below), plus all are now covered in Phinbart's list.--Cook879 13:19, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

I previously deleted it for these reasons. 1. It had one item in the list (now 2). 2. We could have a category instead. Therefore, I propose we delete it again. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 11:52, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Agree as the list isn't going to expand that much and everything on this list can make decent articles, opposed to other lines of merchandise.--Cook879 12:16, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

• Delete Superseded list. Doh5678 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

List of Bart episodes

One: the title is very misleading, instead of episodes focused on Bart like the category its just episodes with Bart in the name. Two: I see no real use for this list.--Cook879 13:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

• Redirect to List of episodes. Doh5678 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
• Redirect Per Doh5678 Nick97 16:34, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
• Categorise Should we not just make it a category called something like Episodes with "Bart" in the title? --Will k (Talk ~ Contributions) 04:40, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Glown in the Dark Radioactive Homer

I renamed both the page "Glown in the Dark Radioactive Homer" and the file "Glown in the Dark Radioactive Homer.jpg" to their correct spelling of "Glow in the Dark Radioactive Homer", per the name on the box. I don't see any point in keeping the misspelled versions around as redirects. -- Mythigator 08:52, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Delete: as per above.--Cook879 12:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Delete: per nom. -- Nick97 09:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

TV Guide's Greates Covers

Same particulars as "Glown in the Dark Radioactive Homer". With the page and image renamed and corrected to TV Guide: Our Greatest Covers, there's no point in keeping the misspelled redirects around. -- Mythigator 15:33, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Delete: as per above. FatHomer^Talk 15:38, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Delete per nom. Doh5678 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Delete: per nom. -- Nick97 18:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Keep: This title is used on the spine but not on the cover /AleWi 00:24, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Withdrawn: With the book itself creating doubt about the title, the redirects should be kept. -- Mythigator 09:00, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

The Walt Disney Company

I feel that this is too generic and should be deleted. None of the shows/movies (apart from those already with pages) from that list have enough references. The Solar Dragon 16:18, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Agree --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 13:00, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Agreed --Cook879 15:16, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Hanna-Barbera

Same with Walt Disney Company. The Solar Dragon 16:18, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Agree --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 13:00, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Agreed --Cook879 15:16, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Arnie Pye's lawyer, Judge, Judge (second), Judge (third) and Kent Brockman's stock broker

These articles are pretty pointless. None of these characters ever speak a word and they're only even in a single panel. And Kent's stock broker is only ever mentioned. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 13:30, 27 January 2012 (EST)

I disagree. FatHomer^Talk 04:55, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Since they don't speak a word, and are unnamed, they go against our notability policy. This states something along the lines of unnamed characters who play a large role and named characters get pages. These articles don't meet that criteria. Brockman's stock broker meets the criteria even less as he wasn't named and was only mentioned. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:03, 28 January 2012 (EST)

I worked really, really hard on them, even if they are stubs. But is they go against the sites policy, delete them and put them out of their miseries. --Fred (Talk) 03:43, 28 January 2012 (EST)

You did a good job on them, it's just that the character's themselves don't do anything important. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 13:00, 28 January 2012 (EST)

On one hand I want to say "he's put in the effort, I don't see why not", but then there really is not much to these characters.--Cook879 15:16, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Keep /AleWi 06:45, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Concur with the deletions due to the lack of information about the subjects. Fred, your work on them doesn't have to be in vain; you could incorporate the info/pictures from the character articles into the articles for the stories in which they appear. -- Mythigator 09:18, 9 February 2012 (EST)

10 years old today!

This is easily too minor for an article here and I don't think it should have one. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 04:29, 28 January 2012 (EST)

We should add this to a list of birthday cards page, which we currently do not have, so I think it should stay for now. Randomno 06:10, 28 January 2012 (EST)

We don't need the actual page for a list of birthday cards. A gallery would be best I think. The Solar Dragon 06:13, 28 January 2012 (EST)

A list of many birthday cards. We can create a page called "List of birthday cards" with sections of each, with an image and description. A gallery limits information and card names. Randomno 06:29, 28 January 2012 (EST)

I think some sort of list would be ok. You could stick other types of cards on it, and maybe even other stationary (If you could find any). --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 13:00, 28 January 2012 (EST)

We had agreed that a list be made here, and to not move the article over (Frederick wasn't there though).--Cook879 15:16, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Johnny Tightlips' mother

Only mentioned once, goes against policy, I think. Just like Kent Brockman's stock broker page. | | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 03:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

The notability policy also states that recurring characters family members can get articles if mentioned. However, it doesn't seem to have any information about her other than the fact she is his mother so delete. ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 08:25, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Concur. -- Mythigator 09:10, 9 February 2012 (EST)

Springfield Nuclear Power Plant employee (Simpson and Delilah)

Lack of notability. Said one line. Wasn't seen clearly. The Solar Dragon 06:48, 28 January 2012 (EST)

(This is my response to both the employees) Sounds like they only say a few words each, so yeah I'd say delete. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 13:00, 28 January 2012 (EST)

I disagree, it should get a better image. FatHomer^Talk 14:48, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Disagree - We have named characters who do as little or less then this.--Cook879 15:16, 28 January 2012 (EST)

The difference is, this character is unnamed. Bring this up on the talk page of Wikisimpsons:Notability. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 15:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)

You changed recently the article without question us, before you changed it was all speaking characters notability. /AleWi 15:36, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Keep /AleWi 06:45, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Springfield Nuclear Power Plant employee (Life on the Fast Lane)

Lack of notability, said one line. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 06:49, 28 January 2012 (EST)

I disagree, it should get a better image. FatHomer^Talk 14:48, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Disagree - We have named characters who do as little or less then this.--Cook879 15:16, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Keep /AleWi 06:45, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Little Monty

Does this one dog really need it's own article, especially when none of the other puppies have their own? Seems like it should just be a redirect or they should all have pages. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 18:18, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Disagree. Little Monty is distinct from the other puppies, the same way that Surly Duff is distinct from the other Duffs. There's enough information specifically about Surly and about Little Monty to warrant them having their own articles, even though there's not enough to make individual articles about the other members of the groups they belong to. -- Mythigator 09:08, 9 February 2012 (EST)

Disagree. More emphasis was placed on him than the others. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 10:19, 9 February 2012 (EST)