Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons family tree

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The_Simpsons_family_tree

[edit]

Hyper-trivial, misinformative, and un-encyclopedic.

Reasons why this page should be deleted:

  1. This is extremely trivial -- even to fans of the show. The information given is so obscure, given its source, that most Simpsons fan sites don't provide this sort of thing (though there are a few that do)
  2. The vast majority of characters on the list have never been mentioned on the television show itself. The source for this information is a long out-of-print tie-in book that was put out in 1991, which an extremely small minority of the show's famously obsessed devotees have ever read, and which most of the present staff that writes and produces the show have never even heard of. This family tree also has been contradicted by the show in the 14 years since it came out; for example, Homer and Marge's mothers have different names on the series than they do on this chart, and even though the article notes this contradiciton, it still underlines the fact that the book cannot be taken seriously as continuity. Put simply, its irrelevance (not simply its obscurity) makes it a poor reference source.
  3. This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Something like a list of characters does because it's integral to understanding the show. This family tree is just ephemera that adds nothing useful.

Andrew Levine 01:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think it is of relevant interest to the show, and shows how things in shows can be contradicted from their beginnings and onward. While inaccurate, it still gives some accurate references like the connection between Homer and Herb Powell. It is also interesting to note the ancestory of the families, as well it is interesting to see that Homer and Mr. Burns are distantly related. Note, this particular book was also referenced in the Bart Simpson article for his birth date. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge (though with this much material, probably better to keep). Question: since this only appeared in the book, does it raise copyright issues? Meelar (talk) 01:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It might raise copyright concerns, especially if that book is the only source. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • As summarized and paraphrased text, this is highly unlikely to be copyvio. Radiant_* 10:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • On looking at it a second time, it does not yet appear to be copyvio since it is only paraphrasing and summarizing only a portion of the family trees. Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the topic might be worthy of an article, but as it stands, this is simply a reproduction of material from a book acknowledged to be out of date. The article should reflect all current knowledge about the family tree. --bainer 02:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to The Simpsons. I don't think the article is too long to do this yet. Most of the length is due to the size of the family tree pictures. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the information is wrong. Marge's mother's name is Jackie Bouvier. None of the people above Abe Simpson have ever been mentioned. You can't merge and redirect an image, and other than the image, there is no unique data here. RickK 05:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Incorrect fancruft? Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Rick. Megan1967 06:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Though not canon, it does come from an official source (the book mentioned). I think that contradiction could be interesting to some fans, but I'd prefer it merged for easier accessibility. Radiant_* 10:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a single-use joke copied directly from a book, with no significance to the show itself. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress. sjorford →•← 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep though I admit this was a bit of a difficult decision for me. On one hand, this is both fairly trivial and also bordering on copyvio. I know real family trees can't be copyrighted, but a fictional family tree that appeared in a book... I'm not sure. On the other hand, I consider the book an official source (it was me who changed the birthdate in the Bart Simpson article a few months ago) and this is genuinely interesting information that can't easily be found elsewhere. Plus, with the two images and all, it looks like a good bit of work was put into this, so I'd prefer not to delete without good reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would we want to keep false information? RickK 21:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, as I said, I consider the book to be an official source (as would most Simpsons fans, I'd imagine). The official-ness of the book is without question, as series creator Matt Groening is the book's author. It's true that some of the family tree was later contradicted in the series... but then things within the series were later contradicted by the series as well. For instance, Smithers was a black person in the first season. Any time a fictional work grows past a certain size, continuity problems are bound to slip in, and such continuity problems are of great interest to fans. In any case, the parts of the family tree that conflict with the show are specified and discussed in the article, so readers aren't likely to be confused unless they merely glance at it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah yes, thank you for acknowledging the hard work I put into those images. I would not mind a merge of some sort if it meant keeping thos images :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and whatever else can be thrown at it --SPUI (talk) 14:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial and unencyclopaedic information --Bucephalus 17:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Do you know a lot of the information on an encyclopedia is trivial information such as pop culture-related items which is why most of the answers of Trivial Pursuit questions can be found in Wikipedia, Encarta, etc., Bucephalus? :-P However, this is fancruft and this is coming from a Simpsons fan. --Anonymous Cow 18:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Undecided --Spinboy 03:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good overview of the Simpsons family which is a major TV-series. Sjakkalle 06:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • How is it a "good overview"? If you read the reasons that the article is listed here you will see that the vast majority of the family tree's characters have never been mentioned on the show and the source is badly out of date. Andrew Levine 00:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, really interesting. I never knew there were so many of them. Grue 18:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There aren't! Flipping heck. It was made up for a tie-in book, it's never been used again, it has no significance to the TV show The Simpsons. None. Whatsoever. AT ALL. Grr. Still delete. sjorford →•← 19:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This would be a tough call notability wise if it wasn't for the fact that this seems extrememly dated. --InShaneee 19:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Objections based on contradiction are irrelevant. This is interesting and useful information, and the fact that it was later contradicted in a work of fiction spanning 15 years doesn't lessen its importance. &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsptalk! 20:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting is up to you, but useful? How is this useful? The vast majority of these people don't appear outside this single work. --SPUI (talk) 22:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess it's useful _because_ the people don't appear anywhere else... the information is not easily found elsewhere &#151 FoodMarket&nbsp&nbsptalk! 02:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I found it interesting. --Laura Scudder | Talk 02:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete From the book only, already merged into The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album Commander 02:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • At best it could be considered outside non-canonical material, along the lines of "The Daria Diaries" and the series Daria. It's like saying Cletus Del Ray is Homer's cousin because it's been stated in the Simpsons comic book, while the show has made no mention of this. Though it could explain quite a bit--that darn Simpsons stupidity gene, you know. Iconoclast 02:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned, Mr. Burns is a distant relative. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which means Larry Burns is too, being the son of Monty Burns. So it begs the question: should we incorporate alternative continuities--comic books, official/nonofficial tie-in publications (e.g. Little Golden Books), promotional publications--into the show guide proper, or link them to seperate wikis? I mean, it's noted in here that Comic Book Guy's real name is officially "Jeff Albertson", though Matt Groening said in some obscure interview it was "Louis Lane". Why the name change, anyway? Did Groening or some other writer forget that comment? Or was he just bullshitting the interviewer, not thinking it'd get printed? Iconoclast 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Since it is already merged to the book The Simpsons Uncensored Family Album I vote to redirect there. -- Lochaber 10:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, same article started by the same user one day after the VfD here... fishy. -Jonamerica 21:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm gonna hve to say keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those Simpson relatives have almost no Google results. Brendan62442 18:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 23:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The book and the family tree within could be mentioned in another article and die hard fans that really want to look up false info can run to the library. -Jonamerica 20:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Simpsons_family_tree&oldid=1138855680"