Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peter Griffin's jobs


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Peter Griffin's jobs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks multiple secondary sources covering the subject of "Peter Griffin's jobs" (see Notability). This is not a recommendation or a suggestion to merge &mdash; this is a recommendation to delete; this information would not be of value in a featured article, so it there is no need to delay the inevitable. --- RockMFR 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There will be three secondary sources, four if I get lucky. For something so recent, that's a lot. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete original research, sub-trivial fancruft, vastly in excess of the level of detail that can be justified by the objective importance of either the character or the plot device. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete At most it deserves a small subsection in the Peter Griffin article. TJ Spyke 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Reserving judgment, but noting the existence of List of Homer Simpson's jobs. Not that one article's existence validates another's but it's not like it's unprecedented to list off the jobs of a fictional character. Otto4711 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason the Homer's jobs page exists is because the Homer Simpson page was way too long with the jobs, so it was split off into its own page. Plus, the article is considerably longer than this one. -- Scorpion 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Length of an article, if its content is otherwise encyclopedic, is irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting we delete all of our stubs. Otto4711 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is relevent. Homer Simpson has had a LOT more jobs than Peter Griffin, which is why it is too long for main article. Peter Griffin has only had a few, most of which were one-off jokes as opposed to being major plot points, which many (not all) of Homer's jobs have been. -- Scorpion 01:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that doesn't matter at all, not even one little itty bit. Doesn't matter in the slightest how many jobs each of them has had or how many they've had in comparison to each other or whether Peter's jobs are one-off jokes or more important to the plot. Your suggesting that they are is nothing more than imposition of your own POV on the material. Otto4711 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Otto's analogy to Homer Simpson's jobs. Not "original research": there are at least two sources besides the episodes themselves. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources aren't good enough. One of them is just an episode guide - not every bit of every episode needs its own article - you would agree to that, right? And the other source is another episode guide. --- RockMFR 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * God, this is a hard one. I hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but do not feel that applies to cases that are significantly similar AND discussion has taken place - that amounts to precedent, not a flawed argument, and generally speaking I tend to acquiesce to established precedent.  That stated, the AfD discussion List of Homer Simpson's jobs was a no consensus closure, so I am not convinced of any precedent to hang on to these kinds of articles.  I am also unconvinced that either this article or that one are encyclopedic, and this one at least lacks any reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:ATT.  I guess I will !vote weak delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Its long enough and interesting enough to stay. Epbr123 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but these are not reasons to keep an article. --- RockMFR 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * May we take it from this comment that you agree that an article's being short is not a reason for deleting, as has been suggested elsewhere in this nomination? Otto4711 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As an American Everyman, it is notable that Peter has had as many jobs as he has. Robert Happelberg 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I explained in my nomination, it is not notable. The definition of notability is not what you think it might be. --- RockMFR 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in the absence of any compelling or even legitimate reason for deletion. Otto4711 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep lack of definitive policy on the matter as other lists have been kept. MrMacMan 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The existence of another similar article is not reason to keep this article, and keep in mind that this is actually a discussion &mdash; we should be examining this article, not examining previous decisions. --- RockMFR 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mine lack of a definitive policy in this matter does not guide me to vote for deletion. I believe that this article can be properly sourced in time. (BTW did you reply to every pro keep view in this AfD?) MrMacMan 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nowhere near close to notable. MLA 11:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if someone wants to go into this much detail about this, I'm sure there are plenty of fan sites that would appreciate this. Recury 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As fashionable as it is to poo-poo Family Guy continuity, the fact is that the job Peter had for most of the first three seasons, and his lack of job stability in the post-cancellation seasons is an important and notable aspect to scholarly critique of the show, with implications and commentary on shifting American labor relations in real life. The "indiscriminate information" argument only barely begins to apply to the one section on "jobs in throwaway gags"; the other sections are on "long term jobs held" and "jobs held for a significant portion of a single episode." Anton Mravcek 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting we engage in original research. No sources have been provided which provided a scholarly examination of the jobs of Peter Griffin. --- RockMFR 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also let the record show that just because someone says I'm suggesting something doesn't mean that I actually suggested it.
 * It's one thing to put 'original research' in articles. It's quite another to use it in deletion debates. Anton Mravcek 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep For reasons stated above. --Bishop2 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep But maybe compress list of jobs in throwaway gags to a paragraph discussing the overall impression they create. Per Anton and Bishop, the continuity-supported jobs are worth listing. Donnabella 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We wouldn't be having this discussion about a list of Odysseus's Cretan lies. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per reasons stated above. --myselfalso 00:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The anti-Family Guy conspiracy lobby hopes to win deletion debates at this level so then they can go after the articles on Peter, Lois, Chris, Meg, Stewie and Brian. If they get those deleted, they will next gun for the article on Family Guy. But it's a mathematical certainty that they wouldn't be able to get the article on Peter deleted. They would then have to settle for the next best thing, which is aggressive pruning. I do recognize the need to occasionally prune the article about Peter. The infobox could get very long in the "occupation" field, the main body also can get unwieldy when people add jobs that he only had for one episode, or worse, a throwaway gag not entered into continuity. If I remove it from the Peter article to move it to this list article (which btw is nicely paragraphy for the continuity-relevant jobs and not all "indiscriminate info") then I achieve the pruning without looking like a deletionist meanie bastard. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because the nominator immediately answered to a vote he disagreed with one should not assume that that automatically debunks anything. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as subtrivial material (fancruft), no secondary or tertiary sources exist to support this. Yamaguchi先生 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As notable as the salesman's job in Arthur Miller's play, or Al Bundy as the shoe salesman. CompositeFan 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic material of great relevance to the study of the show, but too large to keep at the main article on Peter Griffin, much less the Family Guy article. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper, this is encyclopedic, free Tibet and all that. ミシガンおたく Michiganotaku 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epbr123, Otto4711, Michiganotaku, CompositeFan, etc. Plinth molecular gathered 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails noteability standards. Jtrainor 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability standards. Jindřichův Smith 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Unclear as to whether it passes notability standards (sources borderline reliable and semi-independent, and the existence of a more substantial source is unknown!) –Pomte 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.