Deletion of List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (6th nomination)

Comment: per |WP:indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: This may violate , but I am going to add a reference to every single entry just to shut COMPFUNK2 up
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: for the same reason as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_South_Park_species this. And for once, can all the users voting "keep" ''please'' leave  and  out of it this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IAR)

Comment: per sgeureka. Fails #INFO and easily covered in the present episode articles. I'd be more willing to reconsider if someone brought up reception or development information on the series one-shot characters ''as a whole'', but I can't for the life of me see why we have something like this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I really think that |lists need a specific notability guideline: "Lists related to notable topics which are useful to a significant number of readers for navigating and finding other Wikipedia articles, or which exist to collect a number of subtopics of a notable subject which would otherwise just be stubs, do not need to prove notability of the ''list itself'', but just the notability of the general topic to which the list is related
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: One more thing...Scorpion, I'm not sure which side you're on, but I think you need to understand that just because someone nominates an article for deletion or votes "delete" doesn't necessarily mean it's solely because they |don't like it. In this case, it's because we don't think it follows the necessary Wikipedia guidelines. Now, I'll admit Hammer was off when he said the article doesn't have ''any'' sources, but he's not off about anything else (I know, because I nominated it last time). At any rate, it's not right to |ignore all the rules in a vote just because it's about an article you like. Whoever falls into that category should maybe recuse themselves from the discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:IAR)

Comment: Because I think this is a very poor nom, based largely on , with faulty reasoning. Here's why
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: fails  on multiple levels, fails , fails , etc etc. Trivial, beyond minor characters and clearly redundant to the better written episode lists since they are all "one-time" characters = one-episode each
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:WAF||WP:N)