Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs (3rd nomination)

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, default to keep. Probably cruft, but sometimes cruft is in the eye of the beholder. Both sides make some good arguments and some not-so-good arguments, but a clear "delete" consensus does not yet exist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Homer Simpson's jobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am renominating this, because the previous AFD was filled with

• Speedy Keep The list has sufficient references to demonstrate that the topic is notable in our universe and so the basis of the nomination is bogus. It seems to be a disruptive renomination based only upon
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Please read the references. They are not as informational as you imply, and don't imply any out of universe notability of this topic stating only Homer's main job as a Nuclear Technician. --T-rex 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I read the previous Afd, and sorry to say, I did not see one
  Afds nominations overwhelming. Please read Before Nominating for Afd, I provided the link for you here [1], before nominating another article. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Again, Colonel Warden, "I think the nom is bogus" is not Speedy Keep criteria. JuJube (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has already passed two AfD's. The list of jobs is significant to both the show, and to Homer Simpson himself. The article passes
  talk) 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:NOTAGAIN -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment I'm just curious as to how the references are sufficient. One confirms (in passing) that Homer has had many jobs, the other mentions that he's had more than 2 jobs (in passing) and the third is about Peter Griffin, not Homer Simpson. None of the articles is specifically about his many jobs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terribly fancrufty, unlike the couch gag list (a major show element). Homer's job-of-the-day might be important within the context of the story of a particular episode, but the notion that Homer has different jobs isn't important to his character as a whole. --Thetrick (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no out of universe notability. No external sources. The only job listed in either of the references only refers to Homer's job as a Nuclear Technician --T-rex 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious and useless fancruft. Eklipse (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of the past 2 Afd's Both past Afd's keep votes were basically one of the following clearly non-policy reasons for keeping, including socks:

• • It is
    a usefull list
  • Many people have contributed to it / a lot of effort has gone into it
  • encyclopedic
  • well sourced
  • important
  • valuable
  • "This is just a cartoon show. You people should have better things to do [than delete it]"
  • A "well known list"
  • "List of Homer's jobs is an excellent piece of popular culture"
  • 'per' votes
  • blank votes

However, there were some votes follwing a more reasoned train of thought, which I have combined into the following raison d'etre:

• Homer changing jobs is a running gag/important aspect/staple of the Simpsons/Homer, which is frequently discussed in Simpsons literature and critical studies, and therefore it is notable enough because Homer is an important part of popular culture. It needs to be a separate list, outside of the Homer Simpson, article for space reasons, Therefore, unless any future keepers have comething more to add, it is clear that this is the statement which must be measure against the deletion policy by any closing admin, who should also consider contributing much more than the single sentence summaries of the last two keep outcomes. I am not voting, as I think its ridiculous that wikipedia is so variable in this respect, where this list gets kept twice, but a list of the Simpsons chalkboard gags gets deleted. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Xoloz in the previous AfD. (if it ends up being !voted for deletion, please move to wikiproject space instead of destroying) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not a collection of indescriminate information and Homer's jobs are not as big of a series hallmark as some seem to think. What about a list of Bart's pranks (or prank calls), Barney's belches or times Homer says d'oh? Keeping this list would advocate the creation of those three (and others). From the last afd, a lot of people seemed to think that getting rid of this page would mean that Homer's jobs would have to get undue weight in the Homer Simpson article. While it could have a paragraph (or perhaps even a small section) I don't think it would dominate the article like some believe. Wikipedia is not meant to be a complete guide to fiction. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources do not provide adequate out of universe notability for something that is not really one of the biggest hallmarks of the show. It's an indiscriminate list, which can be effectively summed up in Homer's article (as Scorpion said) and moved to the Simpsons Wiki to preserve it. Gran² 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep On the one hand I don't consider this encyclopedic and it might be a bit sill even. However I also don't consider Wikipedia a real encyclopedia and one of its main values is pop-culture stuff no encyclopedia would do. That and I'm not sure where else this would go while simultaneously thinking people would look for it.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Admittedly hard to justify inclusion on guidelines, but guidelines are just that, a guide. The Simpsons are something of a cultural phenomenon and this list is indeed useful, so to me common sense says keep. Also there's some brief mention of Homer's jobs in this USA today articleincluding a few not on this list. RMHED (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone explain what, exactly, this list is "useful" for? Also, this rather well-known site strikes me as the perfect place for this list - and they accept contribs. --Thetrick (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons fans who may not go online much so don't know about The Simpsons Archive. A non-Simpson fan who is dating or befriending a Simpsons fan, but doesn't personally want to go on Simpsons sites. Stuff like that.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't know how to use google have probably never heard of wikipedia either --T-rex 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not what I said. I said "may not go online much." Even people who go online maybe once a year have heard of Google and can type "Homer Simpson's jobs" if a friend talks about it.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using that standard Wikipedia would host about half the material on the Internet. --Thetrick (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time "g." More seriously this has been the subject of articles. So this isn't like any random assembly of words or phrases a person might stick into a search engine. A search for "homer simpson's jobs" gets 1310 g-hits. A search for "George W. Bush's jobs" gets about 41[2] and for "Washington's jobs" there's 288. So there's more interest in the careers of Homer Simpson than that of the US's first or current President. That might be weird, but unsurprising. I have my doubts, but this kind of thing does seem to fit what people use Wikipedia for even if it'd be absurd in any other reference work. (Note "Blair's jobs" gets almost 600 and "Bush's jobs" gets considerably more than "Simpson's jobs")--T. Anthony (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Combine Combine this article with the article about Homer Simpson.Stoplight18 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After looking at it, it is a long Detialed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoplight18 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just now I've added references to this article which was published in the
  Montreal Gazette. (Did others not bother to search for sources?) I think there's enough out-of-universe notability to argue for keep.(Changing to neutral.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's just one article though. Most guidelines say at least two. It still doesn't help the fact that it's a big list of indescriminate overdetailing and cruft. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True enough, and I'll switch my !vote to neutralchanged again—see further down the page.. Forgive me, though, if I sit here grumbling still about how editors in deletion discussions are more quick to !vote "delete per lack of sources" than to actually search for sources. :/ Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the references just added prove, Homer's innumerable jobs do form part of the mainstream media reporting of the Simpsons, and hence there are reliable sources proven notability. This is, as proven in
  Bastin
  22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As someone who is not at all familiar with the show, I'm just curious: if he changes jobs every day, what's the point of merging with his article? Either it should be deleted, or it should be kept, for if he's changing jobs so frequently, it will need to be spun out to its own article in order to avoid making his page like 100KB. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Simpsons is completely different from live action shows in that there is usually no continuity whatsoever so most (as in 99%) of these jobs are limited to one episode. Homer could be fired from his normal job (as safety inspector at the nuclear power plant) in one episode and become an ice cream salesman, but the very next he'll be back to his default job with no explanation at all. Half of these jobs are merely one-episode plots and the other half are a lot less than that. Most of them really wouldn't be worth mentioning at length on the Homer page. If the community decides to delete this article, I'm going to add a small section saying that he frequently has new jobs and go into a little bit more detail, but that is all that is really necessary. Considering that all of the Simpsons character GAs manage to condense 420 episodes into a 4-10 paragraph "role in The Simpsons" section, this is just overkill. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Full of fancruft. Martarius (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simpsoncruft. JuJube (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a list of episode premises, one-off jokes, and background notes, all scrambled together by an in-universe instead of out-of-universe organization. This is not encyclopedic material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NOTE, which states that a topic needs substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Note the word multiple. This article has four so-called references, three of them (from marginal sources) that make completely trivial mention of Homer's jobs. Only one article has Homer's jobs as a subject, and that only addresses his "top ten best jobs", not a complete list. But even if one accepted this article as a legitimate reference, which is doubtful, one reference is not enough to establish notability. Gatoclass (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep as
  Tally-ho! 00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• To quote from
  notable? There aren't any. The article has exactly one source that discusses Homer's jobs as a topic, and that itself is nothing more than a trivial humour piece. If a topic isn't notable, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Editors have mentioned reliable sources in this discussion that should be added to the article. The topic is notable and should be in the encyclopedia. Sincerely, --
  Tally-ho! 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep everything is cruft, if it is not your area of interest. It meets all the standards for Wikipedia Lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, several of those on the delete side are prominant editors of articles about The Simpsons. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Combine this article with the article about Homer Simpson. Beve (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, in-universe Simpsonscruft. There has to be a limit of how much fan material we are willing to tolerate within an encyclopedic project. Eusebeus (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Maitch (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kirk Gleason had many dozens of jobs in Gilmore Girls, and it had no more impact than a laugh for one episode each. This list is no different. If the phenomenon of Homer's having so many jobs is notable (I wouldn't be too sure of that, as it never crossed my mind), it can be noted in his article without the hundreds of examples. This list already appears (twice) at the Simpsons wikia,[3][4], so no transwikiing necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After following this whole discussion, and despite having contributed the most relevant reference to the article, at this point I am convinced by sgeureka's reasoning, and am switching my !vote to delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This Afd is 6 days old, somebody put it out of its misery one way or the other. Despite the fact it was singularly ignored, I stand by my summary and conclusion made above. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure we can accurately say one way or the other; I believe it should be kept, but it really seems a no consensus. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 18:57, 19 June 2008 (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.