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, total original research. Sr13 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contains an essay which appears to be original research, and a list of characters none of which have any sources or attribution. Article has been tagged as failing to cite references or sources since March, but there is no sign that it is being improved. Hobson 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There may be a sourced article out there about the "popular" young, attractive person as a meme in literature, but the meme is no more 20th century than Jane Bennett, Georgiana Reed, or Eliza Durbeyfield. If such an article were to exist, though, it would have to be sourced and neither original research or a synthesis. (Edited for clarity.) --Charlene 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People need to know about the stereotype, a common stereotype of people in fiction. Angie Y. 00:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is definite OR, and nothing shows that it can be anything more than that. TTN 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - entirely original research --Haemo 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Give editors a while (three more months) to provide sources. I agree with those that say the article needs to have a reference and has a lot of room for improvement, but I think there may be a source out there and I believe in giving every opportunity.Ursasapien (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seraphim Whipp 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I often go to Wiki for just this type of information. I believe that the article is verifiable Give the editors sometime. It obviously isn't anywhere near being a good article and may never be, but the information is still important. Millancad 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how this article really matters. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because definitely verfiable and Wait, because editors should have more of an opportunity to improve an article that can and most likely will be easily improved substantially with time. --24.154.173.243 17:16, 24 June 2007 (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.