Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of group stock characters


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

List of group stock characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Like Video game item clichés before it, this is just an unattributed original research. Also likely counts as an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Otto4711 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unattributed OR. Arkyan 15:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JuJube 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep language changes and any mention of groups is a changing subject and liable to be without support from past experiences. this is an excellent try at describing groups for a writers mode of thinking. although not the normal mode of thinking and certainly not the mode of the average thinker writers do have a mode of thinking that is differant and deserves consideration. classifications of words in a dictionary or encyclopedia should include topics that challenge the imagination of the reader. i would agree with delete if the information was wrong. but the information is correct. i have been doing research using the wikipedia the free encyclopedia and have found it amusing and very useful. learning differant ideas from other people is the source of learning. this is definately a differant idea. if you wish to edit it by all means do so. if you wish to add to it by all means do so. this is a commentary that is worthy of the debates in the us senate and congress. psycologist would find list of groups a fasination. even if those groups were fictional. socialologist would find list of groups a fasinating subject. groups of people wanting something more than "I" would find the listing better than nothing... i know i am outvoted by the deletes above but i beg of you to reconsider. this is a job well done that might be better but it does not diserve to be deleted on the basis that "groups" is not diserving of a try at describing them... there is a comment that the article must be attributable to a reliable source... this article list each example as a reliable source.  each example is a reliable source. so the argument that this article has no reliable source is not exactly correct... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.225.46 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * ...What? JuJube 00:31, 23 March 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.