Deletion of Undercover Burns

Comment: Per . Nominator has also displayed a strong misunderstanding of notability guidelines in several nominations. Perhaps they could benefit from a mentorship? I don't think these nominations are in bad faith
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: per above arguments. Unlike the majority of other shows, I don't think an episode of The Simpsons would fail  as there's always going to be coverage of them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Some of these episodes seem to have plenty of coverage to show they pass , Undercover burns has been discussed due to not being written by the normal team, I, Carumbus recieved some coverage of it's depiction of ancient Rome and Treehouse of Horror episodes always attract coverage. The other episodes have at least 1 secondary review each. There are plenty of Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion|alternatives to deletion that should have been considered here, such as merging the content to the article on the series, something that can take place outside of a deletion discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I think that fans of ''The Simpsons'' should stop making articles for every episode, especially since not every show needs to have every episode an article. It is violating ,  and AD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NAD)

Comment: all notable by . A few of these only have one or two reviews each which is borderline. They can be expanded
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)