Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female stock characters (2nd 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. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of female stock characters
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Original research and synthesis, totally arbitrary examples. How do we know that any of these is actually a common stock character or just someone's opinion thereof? There is also no corresponding "List of male stock characters." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete though i suspect this comment is futile. unless each entry has at least 2 mentions of it being a stock female character, and unless each example also has critical mention of them being a stock character, this is original research. what are the qualities that define a stock character, as opposed to an original character? im interested to see the debate here, though im not hopeful it can be improved or even that the issues involved will be understood by most. i expect "notable, useful, keep". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed that this is guaranteed to amount to an arbitrary list with no definable criterion for inclusion. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with the nominator, the list is arbitrary, and the examples are someone's personal opinion. J I P  | Talk 06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the very wise nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete How on Earth is a catgirl a "stock carrier"? (I'll admit, I've never even seen manga, much less read one.)  How is the 'companion' stock character cited with a work on 18th century fiction that doesn't use the term, and then uses Sarah-Jane Smith as the example?  (A classical companion and a companion in 'Doctor Who' are quite different concepts).  How is St. Joan of Arc a fictional character?  I'll call it OR for lack of a better term.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:OR issues. Warrah (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: viz, OR and SYNTH. Eusebeus (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is actually worse than the list that was nominated the last time. It seemed to have addressed the problem of explaining what the hell these different characters were supposed to be at one point, but this type of "you should know what I'm talking about" list of examples from television doesn't work for an encyclopedia.  Some I recognize-- "Winnie Cooper" was the girl on The Wonder Years, but does anybody watch that anymore?  A surprisingly awful article. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all the fault of User:Colonel Warden. Way back a year and eight months ago, the article was in a pretty good shape. Then this guy suddenly decided to come along and replace a nicely written encyclopedic article with just a list of arbitrarily chosen examples. Many users went on a constant edit war with him, with them restoring the article to its encyclopedic form, and him reverting it to the list of examples, without comment. Then, after a few months, everyone else just gave up. The article should either be restored to its version in April 2008 or deleted, and User:Colonel Warden should be reprimanded. J I P  | Talk 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Even before it went downhill it was oddly arbitrary, It's mainly OR with no bottom given almost any character trait could be called "stock". treelo  radda  01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We had nothing but Keeps for this last time and the nominator does not explain why he has changed his view from the view he expressed then, nor has he made his objections known at the article's talk page. There is much talk of OR above but little in the way of specifics or examples to demonstrate or prove that this material is original.  If the article is inspected, we see that the entries are mostly blue links and, if you follow these, you will find substantial sourced articles to back them up - articles such as Bunny boiler and Bond girl.  These terms and concepts did not originate here and the sources prove it.  Furthermore, we have sources to back up entries in the list and it is easy to add more.  For example, consider a good seasonal example - Pantomime dame.  This is a stock character in the traditional theatrical entertainment held especially in Britain during the Christmas season.  Most British readers will understand this immediately but foreign readers may require a citation.  So, looking for a source, one soon finds an educational work in which the pantomime dame is discussed with Widow Twanky being provided as an example of this stock character, as in our list.  I shall now add this source to the list and so it is improved in accordance with our editing policy.  Deletion of such well-founded and sourced material would be directly contrary to that policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Restore older version I agree with Jip. We should restore the  version, which had several notable examples for each thing, and explained what each category was.   D r e a m Focus  16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —  D r e a m Focus  16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure WP:OR and arbitrary fancruft. It is not an encyclopedic article and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for being verifiable and notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep and clean up, per above. Well founded information. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * note I have contacted some of the editors who edited this article in the past, and contacted all editors in the previous AFD. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. As with my previous comment at Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in science fiction, I ask, "what sources could a list of stock characters be expected to have?" Does anybody disagree that a female stock character such as the Hooker with a heart of gold is notable? There are several female stock characters that are notable, so a list of them is acceptable. As for sources, see or .  Abductive  (reasoning) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as a previous discussion closed as an overwhelming keep and anytime someone uses a WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:PERNOM style of non-argument in an AfD we must keep by default. And also keep per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable. In any event, a plainly discriminate list of only stock characters and only female ones. It is unoriginal research as presumably only verifiable examples are included. Moreover, the list serves a valuable function as a table of contents of sorts to other articles. I finally recommend creating a similar article for males. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I struck out my delete vote because of the recent clean-up. At the moment I'm neither voting for delete or for keep. J I P  | Talk 19:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but require sourcing, although it should be adequate for the sourcing to be included in the linked articles. Having this list in Wikipedia was a key justification for deleting Category:Female stock characters, although that was WP:BOLDly emptied and deleted three times and never taken to CFD/DRV; the fullest discussion is probably here. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  the sourcing seems to be being added nicely. I agree with Fayenatic that sourcing in the dependent articles is sufficient (otherwise we could never write in SUMMARY STYLE); since not everyone agrees, it is probably wise to put at least one key reference in each section. There is a difference between fancruft and film studies, and those who are supporting the deletion of this article seem to be unaware of that.    DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete purely original research.  Them From  Space  21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The dramatically improved article cites secondary scholarly sources, i.e. the research of others, and therefore cannot justifiably be called "original" research. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy as mainly now by Colonel Warden, that he may add actual references to the terms being used by other reliable sources as types of characters, and that each exemplar also needs a RS reference linking the character to the sterotype furnished.  And suggest he prune any stereotypes or examples which are not readily sourceable by WP policies and guidelines.   This would for once and for all eliminate any of the OR which, unfortuneately, is present in the current article.  I would suggest, in fact, that he examine the standards from List of eponymous laws and apply them here, then resubmit to mainspace. Collect (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to TV Tropes? Artw (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. That there are as much sourcing as there is in the article indicates that the topic of stock characters, and specifically female ones, is notable -- and that the conception of the list is not original research in a Wikipedia sense. Given the state of the list, especially compared to what it was in the first AfD, shows that work is continuing as I at least stipulated during that debate. Whether including a given entry on the list is supported by a reference (and needs to be) is an editorial decision, and not for here. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep With rescue under way by A-Nobody and others, it can be made useful and accurate. Mandsford (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete OR by Synthesis - a list that does not, and can not have real criteria for inclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Research cited from secondary sources cannot legitimately be called "or". Moreover, only stock characters that are female and that are backed in reliable sources is a pretty clear and obvious criteria for inclusion.  There is therefore no valid reason to redlink this article.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Article has improved dramatically since nomination and the initial flurry of deletes (hence why two of the deletes have now been struck) per many reliable secondary sources found on Google Books to add definitions of the characters as well as academic analysis of the concept in general. While more work can and should be done, no reasonable editor can any longer call the article entirely "original research" and certainly not indiscriminate either.  And certainly no editor can in good faith suggest that the newly cited material should not at worst be merged to Stock characters per WP:PRESERVE.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I filed this for AFD not realizing that I had voted "keep" in the first afd. The article was actually in better shape in the first AFD before it degenerated to what I nominated. Thanks a lot to the rescue attemps by A Nobody and so forth; I'll just let this go down as a keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep due to the noms flexibility in changing his position to Keep, and the great improvements by the Colonel and A Nobody. Article is a very useful navigation aid, and the topic is clearly notable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: List_of_stock_characters -- Tim Nelson
 * 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.