Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town drunk

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town drunk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(withdrawn) Original research. A dicdef plus a bunch of examples plus more original research. I am not saying that such archetype does not exist. I am saying that I don't see it described in reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

changed to keep, based in the idea which came out of the discussion that the article may be salvaged by rewriting it to be about a social stereotype rather than about a stock character from literature. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete There is no media or reliable coverage that determines what a town drunk is. I searched the internet to find some but had no luck. Wrightie99 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Despite a town drunk being a well known stereotype, especially in Irish folk law but I'm not sure it is 'important' enough for an article. That being said any reliable sources and this article could be viable.

Comment. There's a fairly substantial discussion in this book. This book also seems to have some critical commentary. I'll look for more later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs references, but this is a typical stock character and I'm assuming that sources will be found. There's at least one book on alcohol in movies [1], and many with the subject heading "Alcoholics in literature." It will be hard to avoid OR, so this is going to require a lot of digging. LaMona (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems not to have considered alternatives to deletion. Anyway, the topic is obviously notable - see On Town Drunks, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously you did not read the link you provided. The term is used about real town alcoholics, not about stock character. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I read it. The title of the topic does not confine us to fiction and it seems good to cover the reality of such folk. Andrew D. (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, actually it looks like a good idea to rewrite the article (definition) so that it is about a social stereotype rather than about stock character. In this case I agree there are enough references. Sorry, I didn't think about this earlier. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these book mentions [2][3][4], IMHO needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of these mentions discuss town drunk as stock character in reasonable datail? Do you think I cannot google? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one said you can't Google, I'm simply !voting Keep based on the mentions which to me with the above sources are sufficient enough for an article- As for the "Stock character" mentions - I'd imagine there's a few stuff offline somewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 3 June 2015 (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.