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. postdlf (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just-in-time lad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article was already declined as a Speedy Delete, but was suggested to be sent here. The article is seemingly in violation of WP:OR. In addition, actually searching for any reference to this supposed archetype gives no results, making it likely that this also falls under WP:HOAX. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's much better than "inappropriate pages". You're making real progress. Keep on the same way. – George Serdechny 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is an original term, and we're not TV Tropes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're here not to discuss the terms (for terms see WP:MOVE). Discuss the subject instead. – George Serdechny 20:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let me clarify. This is an originally created term, and therefore constitutes Original research and analysis. No matter what term is used as a title for the article, it's been produced as an original synthesis to claim that these are stock archetypes. We would need to reference sources that talk about the stock character directly, which this article doesn't do, and as described above, don't seem to exist. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete as prohibited original research. The one cited text currently on the article does discuss the general concept of character archetypes (see page 49) but makes no mention of this particular alleged archetype. In fact, no example in the text comes anywhere close to this level of detail or specificity. Google turns up nothing on any of the alleged names except a few false positives, primarily re-quotes from a single piece of Lord-of-the-Rings fan-fiction. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seriously lacking in sources. Possible hoax or OR. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Examination of the cited sources show no mention of "just-in-time lad" within their text. Additionally a search engine test finds no relevant sources other than the Wikipedia article. Delete as per WP:NOR unless reliable sources dealing with the article subject are produced to establish verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 13:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? 16 900 000 results for only the google search are "no relevant sources other than the Wikipedia article"? Well, well, well. I do not accusing anybody of misrepresenting the facts, but... the facts said it's not true (check for accurate results). Best wishes. – George Serdechny 14:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that not only have you changed the search term, a cursory examination of the search results shows nothing related to the article content. RichardOSmith (talk)

Sure. And the references came to me while sleeping :) – George Serdechny 08:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out, none of the references cited in the article actually refer to the subject of the article at all. You use the references to prove that certain film making techniques are real, or that certain movie scenes exist, but no where do any of the references give any evidence that the term "Just-in time lad" existed before you created it in this article.Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the term. I've deleted it from the article. There is no single mention of "Just-in time lad" in the current edition of the article. I've allready stated that we do not discuss the terms. And you still do discuss the term instead of subject. You discuss the done thing, and I'm talking about possibilities. Sorry, but you are unable to see changes being made, as well as not able to propose any rationality. There will be no dialogue between us under such circustances, unless you will change your attitude to more reasonable. Currently we are going to get out of this AfD with featured article. Everybody, who have eyes and able to read, can judge by himself. – George Serdechny 19:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Origial research and a neologism. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has been rewritten during the AFD to replace uses of the titled term ("just-in-time lad") with a new option ("last-minute hero"). I don't see much in the way of reliable sources to suppose that either. Fundamentally, this appears to be original research asserting that the character who performs a deus ex machina constitutes a recognizable archetype in and of itself. And I'm just not seeing the sources to support that claim, regardless of what one might call it. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:OR --Reference Desker (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (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.