Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroic 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

List of heroic stock characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Hasn't established notability; appears to be an indiscriminate list; doesn't state anything that isn't already on Stock characters, and has been tagged for improvement for a while but doesn't appear to have been touched. SpikeJones (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: per "doesn't state anything that isn't already on Stock characters" Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, Delete Actually, it does state all sorts of things not already in the article Stock characters, but the list of examples is totally unsourced, cobbled together instead from the contributions of passers by who added their own opinions about who's a born loser, who's a lovable klutz, who's the person chosen by fate for greatness, etc..  The sad thing is that examples could be sourced.  Entertainment sections in newspapers and magazines compile such lists all the time; you'll read a review of Steve Carrell in Get Smart, or a celebration of Charlie Brown, and the editors dust off a list "The 10 Greatest _______s".  Wikipeida is gradually making the transition, from "add to this bulletin board" stubs to "google before you publish" articles.  Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to source examples, not to delete the article. -- Banj e  b oi   02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. What WP should be making the transition to is fixing articles, not deleting them and not ignoring the problems. DGG (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to an extent on that, but someone has to be willing to take the time to do the fixing. In this case, it would take a lot of work.  If there's any indication of improvements being attempted, then I would urge that we hold off.  On the other hand, if nothing changes by the close of discussion, then I would say that the problems have been ignored form more than two years. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On your high horse much DGG? How can any of the reasons we've given for deletion be "improved", it is a fact that list merely contains duplicated information from it's parent article. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Having recently been blocked for awhile for incivility, I shall say that we all need to try to stay civil here. Although, in this case, I may disagree with DGG's view of what Wikipedia should be, I respect his views.  Mandsford (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I gave the impression of being incivil, I did not intend it (lol I knew I should've put a ";)" after my "high horse" jib). I hope you, DGG, haven't taken offence :) Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. I'll stay on my high horse, thank you! :)  JBsupreme (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep An appropriate child article off the parent presented concisely and without undue sensation. I see reasons to clean-up but not to delete. The parent article also splits off several other lists making all the articles more user-friendly. No need to to recombined them all back together or to otherwise form one mega-super article when we have a split article here that seems to work just fine. -- Banj e  b oi   23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. Apart from the OR, the list treads the same ground as Stock characters. Leithp 07:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't. And OR worries can be addressed by simply adding sources to confirm examples are considered examples for which they are listed. -- Banj e  b oi   02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If OR worries can be so easily fixed, why did you reinsert the examples without references? I suspect the reason is that there is no reliable source describing the vast majority of these as stock characters. Leithp 07:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The history of the article doesn't give me any confidence that sources are going to be added.  I've seen one attempt to preserve the article by removing unsourced entries, which would be part of a rebuilding process.  Instead of a citation being found for any of those examples, the entire group was put back in, along with a comment that all of the examples were "sourceable to the original source".  I don't see an original source, but I see a lot of original research.  If all of these examples do come from an original source, then I don't know what that would be.  I don't see any bar to recreating a verifiable list of examples, but this article isn't it.Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourced to the original means the originating source of the content; for instance, Job of the Bible can be sourced to ... (wait for it) The Book of Job in the Bible. I would love if all content on all article was sourced in-line clearly and concisely but most content on Wikipedia is not sourced at all. Having stated that I would prefer that we target content that is likely untrue, outlandish, disreputable and that doesn't seem to be the issue here. It feels like wikilawyering to counter that an example has to be sourced. It would be nice but are you really suggesting that this information is false? Obviously our editors felt, and I happen to agree, that providing examples of heroic archetypes was more illustrative to readers using a variety of traditoinal and pop culture characters. I find it quite helpful actually and think the article and our readers are better served by actual examples. This is how people learn and one way we convey concepts.  -- Banj e  b oi   01:22, 10 December 2008 (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.