Wikisimpsons:Pages for deletion

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Pages for deletion (PfD) is where editors discuss whether a page should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least five days after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the page may be kept, merged or redirected, moved to another title or deleted.

Creating an PfD discussion

If you want to create a deletion discussion simply list in the nominations section:

Example Page

Reason for Deletion ~~~~

Discussion goes below

Nominations

Cat Food

What the heck? Generic brand. Delete! --Fred (Talk • Contribs. • Editcount) 20:20, 25 January 2013 (EST)

Technically it's not generic, since it's cat food made from cats. I'm neutral on this one. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 19:25, 28 January 2013 (EST)

European female Moe

Unnamed, non-speaking character. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 17:28, 28 January 2013 (EST)

K. -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 21:15, 28 January 2013 (EST)

Delete. --Fred (Talk • Contribs. • Editcount) 21:57, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Keep, although it's a non-speaking character, it has a characteristic that distinguish it from others. --Notfut 16:28, 3 February 2013 (EST)Notfut

It is against the notability policy though. ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 15:05, 4 February 2013 (EST)

But I only came here to read about European female Moe! Delete. -- cjc 16:07, 4 February 2013 (EST)

I would say that, although non-speaking and non-named, she does seem an article-worthy character because it was the focus of that particular gag.--Cook879 16:13, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Keep, we must not delete every article that is against the notability policy, some articles is funny and can give us more visitors. /AleWi 16:15, 4 February 2013 (EST)

If we keep this article, it would mean we would have to modify the notability policy yet again to something like: "Unnamed non-speaking characters can have articles if the person who creates the article says so." or something stupid like that. It is against the policy. I have something about her in my Doppelgangers article in my userspace so it won't all go to waste. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 16:22, 4 February 2013 (EST)

I find the notability policy to hard, to many good article's being deleted, many is article-worthy like Cook says. /AleWi 16:27, 4 February 2013 (EST)

No, no good articles are being deleted. A good article is more than one line long. Pretty much all of the articles I have deleted due to being against the policy are only one line long and are just a waste of time and space. No one will read them or search for them. This article will be in my Doppelgangers article which I will move to the mainspace soon. That is the only place it needs to be mentioned. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 16:31, 4 February 2013 (EST)

I was originally neutral on this one, but with Solar's doppelganger article already containing the pertinent information, I'm leaning more towards delete. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 23:46, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Schroeder-like boy

Unnamed, non-speaking character. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 14:35, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Keep, although it's a non-speaking character, it has a characteristic that distinguish it from others! --Notfut 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EST)Notfut

But it's against our notability policy. Therefore policy dictates that it should be deleted. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 15:05, 4 February 2013 (EST)

It looks so much like Schroeder, you may as well call him that. :P Delete, I guess, though you could keep the image for the episode's references tab or something. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 23:46, 4 February 2013 (EST)

---

I agree that the article should be deleted. However, I suspect that there have been enough Peanuts references on the show to justify a Peanuts references article. If that is indeed the case, then the Schroeder look-a-like should definitely be included in it. -- Mythigator 13:23, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Guy Fawkes

Delete tag was placed on the page because he looks more like Shakespeare. On further inspection, I agree with this. The skull is also probably a reference to Shakespeare. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 06:07, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Agree. Out of curiosity, though, why did you put it as Guy Fawkes? --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 11:59, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Frederick listed him as that in the Appearances page. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 12:22, 16 February 2013 (EST)

---

It's Shakespeare for sure ...

1. They've got a literary theme going with the characters making cameos ... Snape, Sherlock and Winston Churchill (who was an accomplished author in addition to serving as Prime Minister). Shakespeare fits right in with that theme, where Fawkes doesn't.
2. The skull is a reference to the "Alas, poor Yorick" scene from Hamlet, which is one of the best-known (but also, alas, most often misquoted) scenes from Shakespeare's plays.
3. The plotline of Love Actually (which Love, Indubitably parodies) comes off like one of Shakespeare's romantic comedies, which have the recurring motif of everyone getting paired off in the end. (If they were getting blown up, you could make a case for the man being Fawkes. :-P)

Plus, as Solar said, the man looks a lot more like Shakespeare than he does Fawkes. The Fawkes article should be deleted and its information incorporated (where appropriate) into the William Shakespeare article. -- Mythigator 13:18, 16 February 2013 (EST)