Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in comedy

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. While the addition and withdrawal of multiple articles during the debate made it a little difficult to determine whether there was any major problem with the process that would require a closing and relisting of the AfD to sort out (hence my first-ever use of {{closing}}), it appears that this was not significantly disruptive to the discussion, and the comments presented during the time that multiple articles were listed are equally applicable to the one that stands now.

That being said, my initial impression of this discussion was that it was fairly split, possibly even a no consensus. However, the comments supporting deletion note that the article violates Wikipedia's ban on original research, one of the criteria for inclusion and indeed one of the concepts on which the encyclopedia is founded. As the keep comments do not address this fundamental issue, it seems there is a policy-based consensus to delete. --jonny-m t 07:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock characters in comedy[edit]

Completely OR, unencyclopedic cruft. If references were found, it still wouldn't be worthy of inclusion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There certainly are "stock characters" in comedy and other forms of fiction. I disagree strongly with the nominator's claim "If references were found, it still wouldn't be worthy of inclusion" as being contrary to the Wikipedia notions of notability being established via reliable sources. That said, the article as it exists is weakly sourced and contains much original research. Considerable research would need to be done to bring it up to standards. Edison (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While stock characters surely exist, I don't see how a list of them would ever meet true notability standards. The stock character article itself is completely OR, I don't see how this list could ever fare better. Being well-known does not signify notability; 'Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"'. Notability is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", even a few references wouldn't necessarily mean notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. If sources could be found for these different archetypes, I think it would be worth keeping. As is, no sourcing and seems to be OR.Renee (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Encyclopedic subject. [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a distinct difference between "mentioning" something and "covering" it. Just because many books mention it, does not mean it is notable or encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, and most likely does have sources to be found. Not sure if this version is on the right track or not, but that's what editing is for. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, maybe a merge with Stock character? I haven't looked at it in depth, but since it is the main article on the subject, it might be the best starting point for a good version. This "merge" could even mean keeping two articles, but replacing this article's content with some found on Stock character. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is encyclopedic, meets notability criteria and also is very interesting. Most of the sources can be found in characters' articles linked. And, as Ned Scott well remember, new editions are welcome to improve the article's sources. About merge the article with Stock character, we have four another lists of stock characters to merge. It may be a problem. (Caiaffa (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep The List of female stock characters was discussed here just a few days ago and so it is too soon to bring it back here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the others, but missed that one. List of female stock characters withdrawn. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lists are almost entirely OR, but if there was a chance of finding sources for this I would be arguing to keep. While the topic is interesting, and a lot of work has gone into it, my concern is that there is ultimately nothing solid backing it up that would enable it to transcend one editor's insightful, but nonetheless subjective analysis. Per WP:SYN, it would not be sufficient for these articles to provide a series of references to individual characters unless those references themselves explicitly referred to the characters as archetypes/stock-characters (and even this would still, arguably, be problematic). An alternative approach would be to use a list of archetypes from a particularly notable, reliable source, but this would almost certainly require reworking the articles nearly from scratch. Debate (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Authority figures in comedy, as per User:Debate above, without prejudice against sourced re-creation. I don't deny there might be a possibility of writing sourced articles about these subjects, but if that were to happen it would mean rewriting these from scratch. There is, after all, an academic field called literary criticism that certainly has some relevant literature. But the authors of these wikipedia pages (except the one I noted, which has some reasonable source) have evidently never read a line of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just rewritten the SF list. It didn't take long. Such activity is more productive than deletion and recreation. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm... well, in the reference you provided there is no entry for "Alien invader", "Caveman", "Fish out of water", "Lotus-eaters", "Machine", "Mad Scientist", "Martian", "Sex object" and "Shapeshifter" (aside from "Redshirt" and "Little green men", which are also absent and which you didn't reference). "Absent-minded professor" is a film, not a stock character reference, "Demon" is only a cross reference to "supernatural creatures", "Zombie" is a cross reference to "Dawn of the Dead", and the only mention of Hitler is "Hitler Wins" (ie a theme, not an archetype)... of the remainder, references to archetypes are marginal in several and there is no indication in the article why these "stock characters" (archetypes) are chosen and not one of the thousands of other entries in that 1300 page encyclopedia. Perhaps there's a reason why it didn't take long to add the references. Suffice to say that this article still looks like OR to me. Debate (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started with that encyclopedia's entry on Clichés (pp 234-5) and then added entries from the checklist of Themes (p xxiv) which were stock characters. If you don't think that such entries from Alien invaders to Zombies are not SF stock characters, then you are obviously not familiar with the genre. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that clichés, themes and "stock characters" are not the same thing, although further discussion of content should no doubt best continue on that list's talk page. Whether or not I'm familiar with the genre is irrelevant, since I'm not a reliable source. ;-) Debate (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please keep in mind the notability aspect. Is the idea of "stock characters in science fiction" itself notable? Has there been "significant coverage" of this idea? One book that mentions similar ideas is not notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Stock characters if sources to prove that these are indeed stock characters, then merge into main article, if they cannot Delete all the articles due to lack of references or proof of notability. Atyndall93 | talk 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell is this? It's not even comparable to most lists here on Wikipedia. It should be in paragraphs not bulletin lists, and this article is NOTHING but bulletin list. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the idea of a list of stock characters in comedy, but this is not a good one. It's missing some very well-recognized ones, like straight man, schlemeel, schlemazel that are used all the time in film criticism. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote - are you sure you aren't thinking of the opening theme song from Laverne & Shirley? [2] ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was waiting for someone to mention that. But they really are common terms among movie critics. Think, respectively, of Jerry, George, and Kramer from Seinfeld. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete all While these are enjoyable to read, and there's a grain of truth to these, there's no excuse for this being purely original research. I recall that movie critics like Roger Ebert have written about movie cliches. As far as stock characters on Wikipedia, this one was written by the "rules schmules" guy, and this comes down to a battle between the verse-quoting geeks like me, and the mother hens who believe that the articles will improve on their own. The decision will be made by one of several stock characters... most likely the "because-I-said-so" one who will announce a decision with no explanation, or the "fretter", who will make a decision and describe the agony that went into making the decision. It's a tossup on whether there will be a response to this from the "please-be-civil" character, or the "easily offended reader" who worries that I might be talking about him. Mandsford (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that selection is a problem, but the method of preparing the list seems reasonable. And probably there are reasonable actual sources that discuss this--many books do. Some of the above comments simply object to lists altogether, which is of course contrary to Wikipedia practice.DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've realized something that has been irking me, which is that these are not even stock characters. These are clichés, or commonly used character types, but not stock characters. A stock character is totally interchangeable, and they usually have the same names. A stock character has the same personality and the same sorts of reactions, so the audience already knows what to expect although they've never encountered this incarnation before. Stock characters do not exist anymore, as they went the way of the Chorus. Steve Urkell from Family Matters has a totally different personality than Wilson from Home Improvement, and would not react the same in the same situation. And Wikipedia can't list every clichéd character type that exists, so why list some of them? Also, information that is not referenced and that does not assert notability can be removed. If these articles should not be removed, then these problems should be fixed. I don't feel the argument "these are notable and have sources because I understand the basic idea" is really valid. If these are notable and have contextual sources then please share. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why? Because this article gives you some really good insights and well-written knowledge about stock characters, which are a very important part of comedy. And most of us can verify this for ourselves. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind, while you're at it, verifying it for Wikipedia as well? Insight is great if it's valid, but these articles are unreferenced, non-notable, and the very idea they are based on is inaccurate. These are not verifiable, because these are not stock characters, and if there is anyone that disagrees with this statement, please prove me wrong. Unless the information can be shown to be factual, and the subject notable, these articles should be deleted. If, after that, someone were to write a completely different article that was verifiable and notable, there is certainly nothing stopping them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would, but I have no idea, and I don't really have the time, to put in verification. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD changed from one article when I first commented to multiple articles. Please remove all articles put up for deletion after the AfD started and people commenting. My comment was appropriate for the original AfD and no longer represents my feelings after the scope was changed. I could update my comments, but instead of trying to follow a moving target, the target should go back to what it was originally or the AfD should restarted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles withdrawn. This debate is now (and again) only about List of stock characters in comedy. Apologies for over-complicating things. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Tag. I believe the majority of WP articles have at least one cleanup tag (it seems like it, at least); many have 2 or more. There is no question that this article needs improvement, but that is no reason to delete what is otherwise a valid subject of study. Tag this article for WP:OR and WP:CITE; maybe we could get this added to WikiProject Film. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.