938:. 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 Knowledge 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. —
410:. 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.
466:
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
233:
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
899:
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
834:
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
1011:
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
988:
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,
90:
900:
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
716:
218:
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."
187:
728:
467:
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
475:. 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 -
315:
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
85:
381:
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
1049:
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.
234:
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".
772:
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, --
181:
384:, 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
731:
805:
but require sourcing, although it should be adequate for the sourcing to be included in the linked articles. Having this list in
Knowledge was a key justification for deleting
144:
117:
112:
121:
652:
104:
1036:
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.
148:
552:
491:
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
621:
1058:
1041:
1024:
993:
983:
964:
947:
930:
913:
889:
872:
846:
826:
797:
776:
748:
707:
690:
672:
641:
611:
581:
542:
508:
458:
435:
397:
371:
354:
333:
303:
286:
260:
243:
224:
69:
483:. Most British readers will understand this immediately but foreign readers may require a citation. So, looking for a source, one soon finds
202:
447:
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".
169:
814:
108:
594:
and arbitrary fancruft. It is not an encyclopedic article and does not meet
Knowledge's requirements for being verifiable and notable. --
768:. In any event, a plainly discriminate list of only stock characters and only female ones. It is unoriginal research as presumably only
866:
765:
668:
637:
607:
1007:
and the initial flurry of deletes (hence why two of the deletes have now been struck) per many reliable secondary sources found on
806:
320:
as the example? (A classical companion and a companion in 'Doctor Who' are quite different concepts). How is St. Joan of Arc a
163:
100:
75:
17:
727:
is notable? There are several female stock characters that are notable, so a list of them is acceptable. As for sources, see
159:
698:
I have contacted some of the editors who edited this article in the past, and contacted all editors in the previous AFD.
453:
209:
724:
781:
I struck out my delete vote because of the recent clean-up. At the moment I'm neither voting for delete or for keep.
835:
fancruft and film studies, and those who are supporting the deletion of this article seem to be unaware of that.
823:
1083:
239:
36:
1082:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1067:
504:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
329:
251:. Agreed that this is guaranteed to amount to an arbitrary list with no definable criterion for inclusion. --
885:, i.e. the research of others, and therefore cannot justifiably be called "original" research. Sincerely, --
175:
861:
662:
631:
601:
1054:
901:
723:
of stock characters be expected to have?" Does anybody disagree that a female stock character such as the
1032:
I filed this for AFD not realizing that I had voted "keep" in the first afd. The article was actually in
325:
943:
820:
256:
656:
625:
595:
484:
269:, I agree with the nominator, the list is arbitrary, and the examples are someone's personal opinion.
235:
979:
960:
743:
500:
492:
416:
407:
393:
299:
195:
519:
version, which had several notable examples for each thing, and explained what each category was.
1017:
856:
757:
496:
367:
1008:
882:
813:
emptied and deleted three times and never taken to CFD/DRV; the fullest discussion is probably
1050:
909:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1013:
939:
761:
559:
520:
448:
350:
317:
252:
56:
481:
traditional theatrical entertainment held especially in
Britain during the Christmas season
495:. Deletion of such well-founded and sourced material would be directly contrary to that
975:
956:
926:
810:
735:
703:
686:
476:
389:
295:
974:
OR by
Synthesis - a list that does not, and can not have real criteria for inclusion.
1021:
990:
886:
842:
794:
773:
432:
363:
283:
62:
905:
756:
as a previous discussion closed as an overwhelming keep and anytime someone uses a
591:
488:
468:
415:
The article should either be restored to its version in April 2008 or deleted, and
342:
955:
With rescue under way by A-Nobody and others, it can be made useful and accurate.
138:
769:
346:
50:
922:
699:
682:
480:
472:
764:
style of non-argument in an AfD we must keep by default. And also keep per
717:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in science fiction
837:
782:
420:
271:
1012:
suggest that the newly cited material should not at worst be merged to
312:
388:, but does anybody watch that anymore? A surprisingly awful article.
91:
Articles for deletion/List of female stock characters (2nd nomination)
1076:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
324:
character? I'll call it OR for lack of a better term.
1004:
878:
517:
413:
411:
382:
134:
130:
126:
194:
86:
Articles for deletion/List of female stock characters
681:and clean up, per above. Well founded information.
904:and apply them here, then resubmit to mainspace.
766:User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1086:). No further edits should be made to this page.
653:list of Television-related deletion discussions
487:in which the pantomime dame is discussed with
208:
8:
647:
616:
553:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
547:
622:list of Film-related deletion discussions
516:I agree with Jip. We should restore the
651:: This debate has been included in the
620:: This debate has been included in the
551:: This debate has been included in the
83:
1005:improved dramatically since nomination
7:
479:. This is a stock character in the
82:
24:
715:. As with my previous comment at
807:Category:Female stock characters
1040:, his otters and a clue-bat •
719:, I ask, "what sources could a
223:, his otters and a clue-bat •
101:List of female stock characters
76:List of female stock characters
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
514:Keep and Restore older version
294:per the very wise nominator.
1:
1059:13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
1042:23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
1025:17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
994:17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
984:17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
965:12:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
70:00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
948:22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
931:21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
914:21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
890:22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
873:21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
847:20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
827:19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
798:19:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
777:17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
749:17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
708:17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
691:17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
673:17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
642:17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
612:17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
582:16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
543:16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
509:13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
459:01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
436:19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
398:17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
372:15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
362:per nom: viz, OR and SYNTH.
355:14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
334:11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
304:07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
287:06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
261:04:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
244:03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
225:02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
883:secondary scholarly sources
725:Hooker with a heart of gold
1103:
854:purely original research.
1079:Please do not modify it.
1068:List_of_stock_characters
32:Please do not modify it.
419:should be reprimanded.
902:List of eponymous laws
406:It's all the fault of
81:AfDs for this article:
879:dramatically improved
809:, although that was
485:an educational work
417:User:Colonel Warden
408:User:Colonel Warden
311:How on Earth is a
44:The result was
675:
644:
584:
556:
68:
1094:
1081:
1039:
1038:Ten Pound Hammer
1014:Stock characters
869:
864:
859:
791:
788:
785:
747:
740:
659:
628:
598:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
557:
539:
536:
533:
530:
527:
524:
451:
429:
426:
423:
386:The Wonder Years
318:Sarah-Jane Smith
280:
277:
274:
222:
221:Ten Pound Hammer
213:
212:
198:
142:
124:
65:
59:
49:
34:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1084:deletion review
1077:
1037:
867:
862:
857:
789:
786:
783:
736:
734:
657:
626:
596:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
537:
534:
531:
528:
525:
522:
456:
449:
427:
424:
421:
278:
275:
272:
236:Mercurywoodrose
220:
155:
115:
99:
96:
79:
63:
57:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1100:
1098:
1089:
1088:
1072:
1071:
1061:
1044:
1027:
1003:: Article has
998:
997:
996:
968:
967:
950:
933:
921:to TV Tropes?
916:
894:
893:
892:
881:article cites
849:
829:
800:
779:
751:
710:
693:
676:
645:
614:
585:
545:
511:
501:Colonel Warden
493:editing policy
477:Pantomime dame
461:
454:
441:
440:
439:
438:
401:
400:
374:
357:
336:
326:Bradjamesbrown
306:
289:
263:
246:
216:
215:
152:
149:AfD statistics
95:
94:
93:
88:
80:
78:
73:
51:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1099:
1087:
1085:
1080:
1074:
1073:
1070:-- Tim Nelson
1069:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:Snowball Keep
1045:
1043:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1002:
999:
995:
992:
987:
986:
985:
981:
977:
973:
970:
969:
966:
962:
958:
954:
951:
949:
945:
941:
937:
934:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
915:
911:
907:
903:
898:
895:
891:
888:
884:
880:
876:
875:
874:
871:
870:
865:
860:
853:
850:
848:
844:
840:
839:
833:
830:
828:
825:
822:
818:
817:
812:
808:
804:
801:
799:
796:
792:
780:
778:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
750:
745:
741:
739:
732:
729:
726:
722:
718:
714:
711:
709:
705:
701:
697:
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
674:
670:
667:
664:
660:
654:
650:
646:
643:
639:
636:
633:
629:
623:
619:
615:
613:
609:
606:
603:
599:
593:
589:
586:
583:
580:
579:
554:
550:
546:
544:
541:
540:
518:
515:
512:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
465:
462:
460:
457:
452:
446:
443:
442:
437:
434:
430:
418:
414:
412:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
380:
379:
375:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
310:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
288:
285:
281:
270:
268:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:
245:
241:
237:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
211:
207:
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
161:
158:
157:Find sources:
153:
150:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
92:
89:
87:
84:
77:
74:
72:
71:
66:
60:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1078:
1075:
1063:
1051:FeydHuxtable
1046:
1033:
1029:
1009:Google Books
1000:
971:
952:
935:
918:
896:
855:
851:
836:
831:
815:
802:
753:
737:
720:
712:
695:
678:
665:
658:Collectonian
648:
634:
627:Collectonian
617:
604:
597:Collectonian
587:
560:
548:
521:
513:
489:Widow Twanky
469:Bunny boiler
463:
444:
385:
377:
376:
359:
338:
321:
308:
291:
266:
265:
248:
230:
217:
205:
199:
191:
184:
178:
172:
166:
156:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1020:. Best, --
1018:WP:PRESERVE
940:Quasirandom
758:WP:ITSCRUFT
754:Speedy keep
253:Glenfarclas
182:free images
770:verifiable
58:have a cup
976:Hipocrite
957:Mandsford
919:Transwiki
821:Fayenatic
811:WP:BOLDly
762:WP:PERNOM
744:reasoning
738:Abductive
473:Bond girl
390:Mandsford
322:fictional
296:JBsupreme
1022:A Nobody
991:A Nobody
887:A Nobody
774:A Nobody
669:contribs
638:contribs
608:contribs
364:Eusebeus
345:issues.
145:View log
1030:Comment
906:Collect
713:Comment
655:. — --
624:. — --
313:catgirl
188:WP refs
176:scholar
118:protect
113:history
1034:better
1001:Update
972:Delete
897:Userfy
852:Delete
824:(talk)
588:Delete
497:policy
450:treelo
445:Delete
378:Delete
360:Delete
347:Warrah
339:Delete
309:Delete
292:Delete
267:Delete
249:Delete
231:Delete
160:Google
122:delete
52:Coffee
1064:Merge
868:Space
843:talk
592:WP:OR
590:Pure
577:Focus
538:Focus
455:radda
343:WP:OR
203:JSTOR
164:books
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
1055:talk
1016:per
980:talk
961:talk
953:Keep
944:talk
936:Keep
927:talk
923:Artw
910:talk
877:The
863:From
858:Them
832:Keep
819:. -
816:here
803:Keep
795:Talk
721:list
704:talk
700:Ikip
696:note
687:talk
683:Ikip
679:keep
663:talk
649:Note
632:talk
618:Note
602:talk
549:Note
505:talk
471:and
464:Keep
433:Talk
394:talk
368:talk
351:talk
341:Per
330:talk
300:talk
284:Talk
257:talk
240:talk
196:FENS
170:news
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
838:DGG
760:or
730:or
210:TWL
147:•
143:– (
67://
64:ark
61://
55://
1066::
1057:)
989:--
982:)
963:)
946:)
929:)
912:)
845:)
793:|
733:.
706:)
689:)
671:)
640:)
610:)
555:.
507:)
499:.
431:|
396:)
370:)
353:)
332:)
302:)
282:|
259:)
242:)
190:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
48:.
1053:(
978:(
959:(
942:(
925:(
908:(
841:(
790:P
787:I
784:J
746:)
742:(
702:(
685:(
666:·
661:(
635:·
630:(
605:·
600:(
574:m
571:a
568:e
565:r
562:D
558:—
535:m
532:a
529:e
526:r
523:D
503:(
428:P
425:I
422:J
392:(
366:(
349:(
328:(
298:(
279:P
276:I
273:J
255:(
238:(
214:)
206:·
200:·
192:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
167:·
162:(
154:(
151:)
141:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.