353:
677:. Tell you what, let's work together to solve your objection "That work hasn't been done, and other than Dream Focus' contribution, no one's attempting to do it." If you are willing to work on it, I'll shift my priorities and will, too, given some time. What do you think? I've done a bit of a head start by
407:
do you identify where in these books this concept is discussed, WHETHER these books discuss the concept at all, where the archetypes set forth in the article are discussed, where said archetypes are defined, or what consensus in reliable sources is about them. All you've thrown up here is a bunch of
909:
is a core content policy. You cannot just allege that unexamined sources support your claim; you must be prepared to defend each and every entry on that list with a specific inline citation carrying a verifiable page reference. You further know full well that the onus is not on editors advocating
733:
style listicles. I can't find anything better than what's been presented and, since that is just a grab-bag of google hits to partial text matches dumped here to try to dismay other participants with volume over substance, I think my standard of scholarship is a bit higher. I mean, I like TVTropes
597:
Ah, I see your point now. However, it seems based on the title of that book only. I also don't think the Brontës' work is military fiction (though that secondary source assures us there are a number of military characters in it). But that book also discusses their inspirations, which do include
446:
that We Are The Mighty is a news service and states: "Overall, we rate We Are The Might Least Biased based on minimal political editorializing. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record" i.e. did not so far fail a fact-check. For 2., the
629:
article. But this isn't that article. This is a list article, requiring the legwork necessary to write the parent article, AND sourcing each and every entry to this one. That work hasn't been done, and other than Dream Focus' contribution, no one's attempting to do it.
602:
there is because I can see only very limited previews. But e.g. p. 34 has "Paul
Jorgenson emphasizes that... the common soldier provided a 'comic substratum' for serious plays ... Shakespeare is known for his humorous military characters..." So there is at least
201:
825:
1091:. Some references have been found for some of the entries in this list. Of course most of the entries on the other list don't have references either. Searching for the names of the examples and "stock character" might find more coverage.
851:
entries on this list, if any secondary sources can be found on all the recommended channels. That way, original research can either be disproven, or rendered probable and the respective section removed. So it is indeed a case where editing
668:
be improved. I am convinced it can. As I said, this is a volunteer project, so noone specifically is responsible for doing any specific work, and there is no time limit for when improvements have to be done. Or in other words, noone is any
232:
Complete failure of WP:OR, almost wholly unsourced -- and tagged for both for a dozen years and more -- and there've been those advocating deletion for over a decade. High bloody time. Prod removed with no remotely valid rationale.
487:
per nom. RS completely lacking. Using a list to evade BASIC should not be supported. Yes they are all war fiction cliches, but to have a page would require serious academic writing on the subject, rather than just an OR collection.
829:
from p. 146 onwards gives a detailed discussion of the subset of stock figures within the - according to that source imporant - group of non-commisioned officers. Together, these should be well enough to satsify
1018:
135:
130:
856:
improve the article. That that has not been done for a long time is unfortunate, but well, it's a volunteer project here. Thus it is for good reason that there is no time limit on tags (given that they
139:
195:
122:
1229:. Quality issues aside this article is not a significant enough topic to require a whole article, as evidenced by the fact that there’s only like half a dozen entries and barely any sources.
254:
883:
of those sources have some utility for this topic and some of them are excellent, as
Daranios explains. The contrary opinions above seem worthless because they have not done this work.
935:
The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google
Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
1190:
Military stock characters are certainly a thing. Which things should be on the list is an act of normal editing. I have found and added references to some things, as have others.
819:, 1. gives an overview of different types and 2. discusses the "pervasive typology of character in military fiction" from pages 32 to 36 with examples, that should be exactly what
367:
625:
Not really; that's a casual mention at best. It seems we're talking two different issues here. I don't dispute that one could likely -- with proper sourcing -- come up with a
374:
162:
784:
Searching there for "stock character" and military or soldier might have more results. Are there any college textbooks for actors and/or writers that list stock characters?
126:
275:
118:
70:
1080:
216:
109:
710:
per nom. Perhaps the tropes exist but the article is based solely on original research considering no significant coverage has been given to the topic. –
438:
by their own description are a "digital publisher and media agency". For what it's worth, they are currently used as sources on some
Knowledge articles.
183:
94:
879:
Kudos to
Daranios for taking the trouble to dip into the sources that I listed. I'm not sure how far they got but, from what I saw in my browsing,
1238:
1213:
1176:
1137:
1114:
1066:
1040:
1002:
983:
946:
920:
892:
874:
807:
772:
751:
715:
690:
640:
616:
581:
555:
518:
497:
479:
470:
the sources provided by Andrew suggest this is a notable subject. What is needed now is to incorporate these into the article as inline citations.
456:
418:
320:
288:
267:
246:
64:
177:
173:
52:. Although sources have been proposed for this topic, rough consensus here is that they do not overcome the OR issues this page has.
360:
223:
1012:
937:" As the nominator does not seem to have done this, they are in no position to criticise those who have stepped into the breach.
843:
Now the claim of original research is serious, but can it be solved? Sure, it can, one just needs to do the work and do a proper
534:
Why is the fact that the Brontës' work precedes film an argument against that source being useful here? This list, after all, is
395:
1084:
1053:
is thousands of years old and was a stock character back then. The page just needs more such work to make something of it and
823:
is asking for. Other secondary sources can at the very least contribute to individual stock characters. Additionally, the book
89:
82:
17:
381:
910:
deletion to prove such references do not exist. The onus is on those advocating keeping the material to prove that they do.
929:
No, in these discussions, the one person who has a specific duty to conduct a detailed source search is the nominator. Per
626:
345:
189:
995:. Perhaps those interested in retaining the list might be interested in doing the sort of rewrite that's been suggested.
388:
103:
99:
656:
The guidelines make it very clear that a deletion decision should not be based on the current status of an article (
999:
354:
Representations of First World War
Returned Soldiers on the Home Front in Some Commonwealth Women Writers’ Fiction
1255:
1164:
1062:
942:
888:
330:
316:
40:
865:. Maybe those editors most annoyed by the current status would like to take it upon themselves to do this work?
1222:
1088:
447:
interesting part starts a p. 32 at the first new paragraph and continues, as far as I have seen, to p. 36.
577:
514:
1251:
996:
439:
36:
1234:
1058:
1054:
938:
911:
884:
816:
768:
631:
409:
312:
308:
279:
258:
237:
966:. Regardless of the potential notability of the topic, I cannot see the current article being kept.
862:
493:
475:
209:
1172:
1159:", p. 34-36, as an example? What do you think of it as a source discussing the topic? And how is
1036:
870:
686:
612:
551:
452:
505:
per nom. Only one of Andrew's sources is applicable. The Brontës are a particularly bad example
396:
The Brontës and War – Fantasy and
Conflict in Charlotte and Branwell Brontë’s Youthful Writings
977:
592:
573:
529:
510:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1250:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
299:
It's easy to find sources for this stuff – a selection of various types follows. Our policy
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1226:
1191:
1092:
844:
785:
738:
style listicles sometimes but
Knowledge is not the place for this largely OR agglomeration.
1230:
1160:
1123:
835:
764:
657:
651:
429:
905:
you haven't examined your sources? What actual "work" do you claim to have done here?
745:
489:
471:
55:
1168:
1150:
1127:
1032:
967:
930:
866:
861:
be solved), and that "nobody has been working on it for a long time" is listed among
831:
711:
682:
661:
608:
547:
448:
300:
234:
1167:"spot on" in light of the new evidence brought up about about that site afterwards?
443:
992:
973:
963:
906:
760:
305:
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
156:
1027:
Oh, and to all "there is nothing worth retaining opinions", please be aware that
1126:
in both the nom and in response to suggested additional "sources" are spot on.
820:
781:
739:
542:(even though some of the secondary sources deal with that), but in military
607:
that is useful for our subject here, it's not just a "random Google hit".
1156:
337:
1049:
1013:
The Image of the
Military Officer in Films Concerning the Vietnam War
1022:
on p. 134/136 tells us that, and lists/briefly discusses some types.
1016:- unfortunately I cannot access it, but this other secondary source
507:, seeing as they preceded films of any sort by about half a century
435:
1047:
Yes, Daranios has made a good start. The classical archetype of
1246:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
826:
Beyond the Stars: Stock characters in
American popular film
564:
Okay, the Brontës are renowned for their pugnacious prose:
403:
Other than your first source -- Some Dude's Website -- in
368:
From Hanoi to Hollywood – The Vietnam War in American Film
1122:- clearly a case of OR and and SYNTH. The assessment by
1028:
678:
382:
Women in War Films – From Helpless Heroine to G.I. Jane
255:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
152:
148:
144:
970:
applies if someone does manage to rewrite it properly.
389:
Savage Economy – The Returns of Middle English Romance
208:
725:
per nom and Mztourist. There's no evidence that this
729:has received any significant attention outside of
361:The World War II Combat Film – Anatomy of a Genre
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1258:). No further edits should be made to this page.
274:Note: This discussion has been included in the
253:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1165:These are the 12 characters in every war movie
1031:have been made since the deletion nomination.
331:These are the 12 characters in every war movie
276:list of Military-related deletion discussions
222:
8:
119:List of stock characters in military fiction
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
71:List of stock characters in military fiction
1081:List of stock characters in science fiction
434:I don't think 1. is "Some Dude's Website".
863:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
273:
252:
782:https://www.britannica.com/topic/Capitano
763:. The current version is unsalvageable.
7:
673:responsible for improving here than
627:Stock characters in military fiction
1155:Weird, did you actually read into "
1010:Another relevant secondary source:
538:about stock characters in military
24:
95:Introduction to deletion process
1085:List of female stock characters
1019:Images of War and War of Images
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1239:03:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
1214:19:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1177:18:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1138:14:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1115:13:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1067:11:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1041:10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1003:23:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
984:08:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
947:13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
921:02:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
893:21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
875:19:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
808:20:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
773:21:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
752:08:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
716:07:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
691:10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
641:02:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
617:10:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
582:05:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
556:19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
519:06:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
498:04:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
457:19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
419:01:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
65:10:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
681:of one stock character type.
480:23:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
321:23:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
289:22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
268:22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
247:22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
598:military works. I can't say
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1275:
664:, etc.), assuming that it
235:Knowledge is not TVTropes.
1248:Please do not modify it.
1223:List of stock characters
1221:anything salvageable to
1089:List of stock characters
815:Of the sources found by
32:Please do not modify it.
1055:deletion is not cleanup
436:www.wearethemighty.com
375:The Hollywood War Film
440:Media Bias/Fact Check
83:Articles for deletion
408:random Google hits.
303:therefore applies: "
570:War-thering Heights
1157:The Military Novel
346:The Military Novel
338:The Military Novel
1087:were merged into
1029:some improvements
981:
679:sourcing one part
566:Jane "Rambo" Eyre
405:not a single case
341:(a journal paper)
291:
270:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
63:
1266:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1154:
1134:
1131:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1096:
972:
917:
804:
801:
798:
795:
792:
789:
655:
637:
596:
533:
433:
415:
285:
264:
243:
227:
226:
212:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1256:deletion review
1208:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1163:'s response to
1148:
1132:
1129:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1094:
982:
913:
847:search for the
802:
799:
796:
793:
790:
787:
750:
649:
633:
590:
527:
427:
411:
281:
260:
239:
169:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1272:
1270:
1261:
1260:
1242:
1241:
1216:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1141:
1140:
1117:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1024:
1023:
1005:
986:
971:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
924:
923:
896:
895:
840:
839:
810:
775:
754:
744:
719:
718:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
644:
643:
620:
619:
585:
584:
559:
558:
522:
521:
500:
482:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
422:
421:
400:
399:
392:
385:
378:
371:
364:
357:
350:
342:
334:
324:
323:
293:
292:
271:
230:
229:
166:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1271:
1259:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1152:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1014:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1001:
998:
994:
990:
987:
985:
979:
975:
969:
965:
961:
958:
957:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
927:
926:
925:
922:
919:
918:
916:
908:
904:
900:
899:
898:
897:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
855:
850:
846:
842:
841:
837:
833:
828:
827:
822:
818:
814:
811:
809:
806:
805:
783:
779:
776:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
753:
749:
748:
743:
742:
737:
732:
728:
724:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
706:
705:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
667:
663:
659:
653:
648:
647:
646:
645:
642:
639:
638:
636:
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
618:
614:
610:
606:
601:
594:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
531:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
501:
499:
495:
491:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
465:
458:
454:
450:
445:
441:
437:
431:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
417:
416:
414:
406:
402:
401:
398:
397:
393:
391:
390:
386:
384:
383:
379:
377:
376:
372:
370:
369:
365:
363:
362:
358:
356:
355:
351:
348:
347:
343:
340:
339:
335:
333:
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:WP:NOTCLEANUP
306:
302:
298:
295:
294:
290:
287:
286:
284:
277:
272:
269:
266:
265:
263:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
244:
242:
236:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1247:
1245:
1218:
1192:
1187:
1128:
1119:
1093:
1077:
1048:
1017:
1011:
1007:
988:
959:
934:
914:
912:
902:
880:
858:
853:
848:
824:
812:
786:
780:Found this:
777:
756:
746:
740:
735:
730:
726:
722:
707:
674:
670:
665:
634:
632:
604:
599:
593:Clarityfiend
574:Clarityfiend
569:
565:
543:
539:
535:
530:Clarityfiend
511:Clarityfiend
506:
502:
484:
467:
412:
410:
404:
394:
387:
380:
373:
366:
359:
352:
344:
336:
329:
307:" See also
304:
296:
282:
280:
261:
259:
240:
238:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
76:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
915:Ravenswing
734:and I like
635:Ravenswing
413:Ravenswing
283:Ravenswing
262:Ravenswing
241:Ravenswing
196:free images
1231:Dronebogus
1161:Ravenswing
1124:Ravenswing
901:Huh. You
849:individual
765:Geschichte
652:Ravenswing
430:Ravenswing
58:Sandstein
1252:talk page
1227:WP:BEFORE
845:WP:BEFORE
605:something
490:Mztourist
472:NemesisAT
37:talk page
1254:or in a
1169:Daranios
1151:Onel5969
1033:Daranios
1000:darkness
997:Intothat
962:As pure
867:Daranios
836:WP:LISTN
712:DarkGlow
683:Daranios
658:WP:CONTN
609:Daranios
600:how much
548:Daranios
449:Daranios
442:reports
349:(a book)
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
1078:Comment
1008:Comment
974:ZXCVBNM
778:Comment
736:Cracked
731:Cracked
544:fiction
202:WP refs
190:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
1120:Delete
1059:Andrew
1050:Alazon
989:Delete
968:WP:HEY
960:Delete
939:Andrew
931:WP:AFD
885:Andrew
832:WP:GNG
817:Andrew
757:Delete
723:Delete
708:Delete
662:WP:AtD
503:Delete
485:Delete
313:Andrew
301:WP:ATD
174:Google
140:delete
50:delete
1219:Merge
1209:Focus
1110:Focus
993:WP:OR
964:WP:OR
907:WP:OR
903:admit
803:Focus
761:WP:OR
727:topic
217:JSTOR
178:books
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
1235:talk
1225:per
1188:Keep
1173:talk
1133:5969
1130:Onel
1083:and
1063:talk
1037:talk
978:TALK
943:talk
889:talk
871:talk
821:Reyk
813:Keep
769:talk
741:Reyk
687:talk
671:more
613:talk
578:talk
552:talk
540:film
515:talk
494:talk
476:talk
468:Keep
453:talk
444:here
317:talk
297:Keep
210:FENS
184:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
1061:🐉(
991:as
941:🐉(
933:, "
887:🐉(
881:all
859:can
854:can
834:or
759:as
747:YO!
675:you
666:can
536:not
315:🐉(
224:TWL
161:– (
1237:)
1175:)
1065:)
1057:.
1039:)
945:)
891:)
873:)
771:)
714:•
689:)
660:,
615:)
580:)
572:.
568:,
554:)
546:.
517:)
509:.
496:)
478:)
455:)
319:)
311:.
278:.
257:.
204:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
1233:(
1206:m
1203:a
1200:e
1197:r
1194:D
1171:(
1153::
1149:@
1107:m
1104:a
1101:e
1098:r
1095:D
1035:(
980:)
976:(
869:(
838:.
800:m
797:a
794:e
791:r
788:D
767:(
685:(
654::
650:@
611:(
595::
591:@
576:(
550:(
532::
528:@
513:(
492:(
474:(
451:(
432::
428:@
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.