Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield Isotopes (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Isotopes

edit
AfDs for this article:
Springfield Isotopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Pure Simpsons fancruft, very little of note on the page. Pretty much the only reason it exists is because there is a real life Albuquerque Isotopes. However, that is really minor and can easily be mentioned at the section on the Springfield page. It seems unnecessary for this page to exist when there is already a section. Scorpion0422 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No new arguments for deletion presented since Scorpion initiated the last AFD. Otto4711 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Did you actually read the old afd? Because there was no section on the Springfield page at that point, and thus it is a new reason to delete the article. Also, in a rebuff to the "Oh, it has real world context" argument (which I know is coming), lots of Simpsons stuff has real world influence. For example, in a promotion for The Simpsons Movie, several convenience stores will sell "Squishees", but there is no need for Squishee to have its own page because it has a section at the fictional products page. The same can be said for this article. -- Scorpion0422 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did indeed read the old AFD, and especially enjoyed the part where you didn't know that there was a real team named for the fictional one. Otto4711 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your point? What does me not knowing something have to do with this afd? And obviously you DIDN'T read it before or else you would have seen that there are new arguments presented here, so please stop lying. -- Scorpion0422 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mmmmmm, Simpsonscruft. (Actually, I think it qualifies because the team is featured in multiple episodes and because of the real-world Albuquerque connection. I purposely didn't look at the previous AfD, just at the article as it stands now.) Deor 02:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why can't the page be merged with Springfield? The page is a stub and all of the information here fits just fine in the sports section. You have to remember, even despite the real world connection, the Isotopes have been featured in a small fraction of episodes. Compare this with Simpsons characters like Lunchlady Doris, the Rich Texan, Lindsay Naegle and even locales/organizations like the First Church of Springfield which have appeared in dozens of episodes and don't have their own pages. -- Scorpion0422 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by the multiple episode occurrences and the team's real-world influence. I'd like to point out that the section on the Springfield page was added today when Scorpion0422 attempted to merge this article with the Springfield article, despite the earlier AfD and its closing admin's request that any merge or redirect be discussed at the article's talk page to determine consensus first. Scorpion, I think you actually make a rather convincing argument for an article on the Squishee. Maxamegalon2000 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great. Here we are trying to cut down on the amount of Simpsons cruft on Wikipedia (I mean, I'm a Simpsons fan but are 800 Simpsons articles REALLY needed?) and you inclusionists are trying to force us to make more useless pages. It's also humurous to note that both pages have been discuseed by the Simpsons WikiProject and nobody thought either page was needed and yet several random users seem to think they are essential. -- Scorpion0422 03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) It appears that there used to be an article on the Squishee, but it was merged by Scorpion0422 less than two months ago, despite his belief that "odds are that it would be kept if it went through an afd". I just thought it worth mentioning, considering he uses that article's status to supplement his argument regarding this article. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed my point: Why create pages for marginally notable items, when they can have sections on big pages? The Isotopes page is a stub and there is no reason why it can't be merged. -- Scorpion0422 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know about you, but I find big pages to be often distracting and tending to bury information in ways that individual articles don't. This isn't to say that there aren't times when a merge is appropriate, but there are times when it's not needed. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per WP:FICT and nom. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Springfield (The Simpsons) - There hasn't been enough said on The Simpsons to merit having a whole article about the Isotopes. The fact that an actual team ended up being named after this team is certainly notable information, but there's still no need to have a whole separate article. On another note, I think everybody above needs to cool down. This debate discussion is getting far too heated. I see what appears to be personal animosity on both sides and both are coming pretty close to making personal attacks. Everybody, let's remember to assume good faith on the part of everybody and remember that we don't want any angry mastodons here.--Hnsampat 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason for deletion given. If you simply think that this could be covered elsewhere, then try to convince people for a merge. But I don't see that happening, as this is a relatively distinct subject that isn't completely connected to the town of Springfield. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's really no valid reason to keep it. Apart from the small part about the real life Isotopes, there's really nothing that could be added to the page apart from cruft a bunch of random unimportant useless facts from random episodes. -- Scorpion0422 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but anybody who bases their argument on the word "cruft" is not going to convince me. If you can't articulate your objection to the content in better terms than that you're not going to persuade me. I really find the use of the term offensive. If you want to try to do without the word, feel free. I'll listen to any actual argument you care to present. FrozenPurpleCube 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to indicate these are random, unimportant, useless facts. The page is about a particular organization that is featured in several episodes of a major television show. Not random(it is specific), unimportant(it's featured in several episodes), or useless (given that many people are interested in the Simpsons, I can't see how we can say information on this is useless). Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent has already been set on what Simpsons notability is. Dozens of character and item pages have been merged and many of them appeared in more episodes than the Isotopes. The way you mention them, you would think that they appeared on a weekly basis. They don't. The Isotopes played a background role in a few episodes, nothing more. Following your "logic" we could EASILY make 200+ pages relating to Simpsons characters, items and places but we don't because said information can be mentioned on the various group pages. -- Scorpion0422 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent is a poor argument to make here, this article was already nominated and kept. If we're going to go by that logic, then this discussion should just be closed. So, maybe that's not the way to go. But as I said before, if you want to make an argument for merge, then try to convince people of that. Deletion, however, doesn't make any sense to me. There are other venues for discussion of mergers than AFD. Use them. For example, the article's talk page. Since there's no discussion there, I can only assume you didn't try that option, despite the explicit suggestion to do so. Is there some reason you didn't? Did you think that another AFD would be more effective? So far, it hasn't been. FrozenPurpleCube 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that the page be deleted (hence the afd) but I am letting people know that there IS a place for a redirect to go, as that was in issue in the previous afd. -- 04:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Your case for deletion has not been convincing from what I can tell. Sorry. Perhaps if you avoided terms like cruft, and made a better attempt to articular your position beyond rather exaggerated comments. Frankly, I think your choice of redirect is poor, maybe you should look for a better one. FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I read through WP:FICT and couldn't find anything that supported this article. Even with the real world connection, it is a MINOR part of the Simpsons and everything necessary could easily be said on the Springfield page. As per the WP:FICT guideline: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."
Again, if you want to talk about merging this somewhere, that's an entirely different question. Try convincing folks of that instead on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources. --Maxamegalon2000 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It seems to me that all of that information would be better off at the Albuquerque Isotopes page. -- Scorpion0422 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Although the information can be connected to the fictional team, it is all about a real team. We need real world context of the fictional team. Concept and creation inforamtion as well as reaction information to the fictioanl team, rather than episodes in which they appeared. Jay32183 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think much of it is probably relevant to both articles, though I only added information that sources specifically connected to the Springfield Isotopes. My goal was to better establish the real-world influence of the Springfield Isotopes, so I didn't touch on other things about the Albuquerque team, such as their colors, stadium, or other nicknames considered. --Maxamegalon2000 01:16, 12 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Springfield_Isotopes_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069476047"