Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Griffin comparisons


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus to delete. The Land 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Griffin comparisons
I am not sure about this one. I can't put my finger on a specific policy saying that Wikipedia does not want long comparisons between four characters in contemporary US television and comic strips which continue down into the minutiae of fertility problems, whether they wear glasses, and which of them are noted for tearing their hair out. But I'm sure it falls under WP:WIN somewhere. I just don't know where. Original research? Indiscriminate collection of information? Or merely outstandingly pointless? At least a dozen accounts are listed in the history page, which staggers me a bit, so someone obviously doesn't think it's pointless. But I bring it here for comment anyway. Telsa 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I certainly wouldn't want to see loads of articles like this on all sorts of tenuously-related characters ("Jean-Luc Picard compared to Princess Toadstool", etc.), but the Peter/Homer similarity is widely noticed and remarked upon by even casual viewers of both series. I would prefer that each claim be referenced by at least one episode citation, and perhaps some of the less-important points removed (e.g. the glasses).  Still, deletion is not cleanup, and this is good information. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Peter Griffin. Cut the enormous amount of irrelevant, over-written cruft that presently clutters the article. Leave enough for interested readers (i.e. no-one) to fill in the gaps.  -- GWO
 * Smerge as per GWO. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:FICT, this would not fit in the original article. However, I would suggest a re-naming and a clean-up of some of the discursive language (WP:NOR). Possible names - "Similarities between Peter Griffin and other television fathers" or perhaps cut out the rest and just make it "Similarities between Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson". -- Lochaber 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, made the cover of MAD magazine, heard it in lots of other places. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR.I'm sorry, but "I've heard it in lots of places" or "I've heard it remarked" is not a reference. This article is original research.  It may in fact be true that there are relationships.  If so this should be published in a secondary source, and then we can write an article here.  If this Mad magazine article mentions some similarities, then this may be a reference.  I suspect that this whole long artlcle is not from Mad, it is rather this authors own knowledge.Obina 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article gives us some fair ground to work on by citing things already, namely the comparisons made in the episodes themselves. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In no respect does this information, in any form, fulfill encyclopedic standards. It is, for lack of a better word, complete trash. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for fat, smelly cartoon aficionados. --Agamemnon2 09:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, not encyclopedic at all, any pieces of relevant content can be merged somewhere appropriate :: Supergolden 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic, WP:NOR. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencylopedic original research. —Cleared as filed. 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - An absolute load of original research. - Hahnchen 16:56, 4 February 2006 (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.