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 keep. Tone 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English versions of The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive coverage of a non-notable aspect of a television series. Many series air in other languages, they do not warrant a separate article listing such minute detail on the differences (AKA WP:OR) and almost entirely unsourced or fansourced material. Such material is not generally considered appropriate for inclusion in a television article per WP:MOS-TV and WP:UNDUE, and giving these non-English versions a standalone article goes against both. At best, its being translated and released in other languages, with any actual notable information about it (i.e. changes that got significant coverage) belongs in the main article, but not here. This article has been deleted previously in several other forms: List of TV channels that air The Simpsons, Broadcasting of The Simpsons, The Simpsons in Australia, however as the names are different enough, AfD seems more appropriate than CSD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The marketing of a very successful television series in foreign markets is notable enough for its own article. Unlike the other nominated article about Family Guy, this one has content and sourcing. While I do not like references to The Simpsons within serious articles (a problem that has cleared up), I see no problem with articles about the business of the show itself. I'd prefer a few less in-universe articles (character bios, episode summaries), and a few more out-of-universe articles (business aspects, actor bios, animation details) about this series that has been a success for more than twenty years. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How it is notable? Many television series are marketed in foreign markets. What makes the Simpsons one more notable. The general topic of Simpsons marketing as a whole may be a notable, which would cover the actual business information rather than just throwing out characters and voice actors, but that sort of section would belong in The Simpsons (franchise) and this article really has nothing that would go there. Such content must, of course, be sourced to reliable sources, of which there appear to be none specifically about foreign language versions (and not just TV listings indicating it aired, but actual, coverage). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone will agree that this should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Mandsford. The referencing needs work, but the subject clearly has enough coverage to meet the GNG. I see nothing in MOS-TV indicating an article of this sort as inappropriate (if anything, the MOS encourages creation of contentlike this), and the nominator's reference to WP:UNDUE is unfounded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - though it certainly requires work and sources, at least one three master theses were written about translations of The Simpsons into other languages. And that was back in 1999.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes that site a reliable source? Looks like a fansite to me, and one violating WP:COPYRIGHT if the articles are legit, as they are clearly stolen from copyrighted sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, google got me to that page more easily than to the Montreal Mirror online archive, which for pre 2002 aren't completely accessible. But that is beside the point, which is that academic papers on the subject exist if you bother to look for them. Of course, for the article, proper cites would point to the actual masters theses/scholarly articles and not The Simpsons Archive.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A student paper is not enough to indicate reliability, and the article promoting this was in the Montreal Mirror, which is not a major newspaper, but a small alternative paper of questionable notability itself. Further, where are these other thesis and what makes them reliable sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable notability because its wiki article is only a stub? How about this? Or are Britannica and the Journal of Film and Video also not scholarly/notable enough? It's not because The Simpsons Archive has a bigger google presence than scholarly sources that the scholarly sources don't exist.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC) ETA: Master thesis by Eric Plourde at Université de Montréal library.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the IP. You could craft this entirely out of scholarly sources, if you want.[1][2] But, newspapers have even more on it, I imagine. Anyways, passes the GNG. Be thankful it isn't one article per country. The GNG would probably allow 10s of articles on foreing countries and their Simpsons stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to be some good discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2010 (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.