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. Although sources have been proposed for this topic, rough consensus here is that they do not overcome the OR issues this page has. Sandstein 10:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock characters in military fiction[edit]

List of stock characters in military fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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. Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Ravenswing 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to find sources for this stuff – a selection of various types follows. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. These are the 12 characters in every war movie
2. The Military Novel (a journal paper)
3. The Military Novel (a book)
4. Representations of First World War Returned Soldiers on the Home Front in Some Commonwealth Women Writers’ Fiction
5. The World War II Combat Film – Anatomy of a Genre
6. From Hanoi to Hollywood – The Vietnam War in American Film
7. The Hollywood War Film
8. Women in War Films – From Helpless Heroine to G.I. Jane
9. Savage Economy – The Returns of Middle English Romance
10. The Brontës and War – Fantasy and Conflict in Charlotte and Branwell Brontë’s Youthful Writings

• Other than your first source -- Some Dude's Website -- in not a single case 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 random Google hits. Ravenswing 01:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ravenswing: I don't think 1. is "Some Dude's Website". www.wearethemighty.com by their own description are a "digital publisher and media agency". For what it's worth, they are currently used as sources on some Wikipedia articles. Media Bias/Fact Check reports here 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 interesting part starts a p. 32 at the first new paragraph and continues, as far as I have seen, to p. 36. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 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. NemesisAT (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Only one of Andrew's sources is applicable. The Brontës are a particularly bad example, seeing as they preceded films of any sort by about half a century. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Clarityfiend: Why is the fact that the Brontës' work precedes film an argument against that source being useful here? This list, after all, is not about stock characters in military film (even though some of the secondary sources deal with that), but in military fiction. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, the Brontës are renowned for their pugnacious prose: Jane "Rambo" Eyre, War-thering Heights. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Clarityfiend: 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 military works. I can't say how much 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 [it seems to me The Incompetent Enlisted Man is one sub-type of "the common soldier"]... Shakespeare is known for his humorous military characters..." So there is at least something that is useful for our subject here, it's not just a "random Google hit". Daranios (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Stock characters in military fiction 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. Ravenswing 02:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ravenswing: The guidelines make it very clear that a deletion decision should not be based on the current status of an article (WP:CONTN, WP:AtD, etc.), assuming that it can 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 more responsible for improving here than you. 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 sourcing one part of one stock character type. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 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. – DarkGlow • 07:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Mztourist. There's no evidence that this topic has received any significant attention outside of Cracked 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 and I like Cracked style listicles sometimes but Wikipedia is not the place for this largely OR agglomeration. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. The current version is unsalvageable. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found this: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Capitano 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? Dream Focus 20:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of the sources found by Andrew, 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 Reyk is asking for. Other secondary sources can at the very least contribute to individual stock characters. Additionally, the book Beyond the Stars: Stock characters in American popular film 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 WP:GNG or WP:LISTN.

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 WP:BEFORE search for the individual 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 can 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 can be solved), and that "nobody has been working on it for a long time" is listed among arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Maybe those editors most annoyed by the current status would like to take it upon themselves to do this work? Daranios (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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, all 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. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. You admit you haven't examined your sources? What actual "work" do you claim to have done here? WP:OR 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 deletion to prove such references do not exist. The onus is on those advocating keeping the material to prove that they do. Ravenswing 02:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, in these discussions, the one person who has a specific duty to conduct a detailed source search is the nominator. Per WP:AFD, "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." As the nominator does not seem to have done this, they are in no position to criticise those who have stepped into the breach. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As pure WP:OR. Regardless of the potential notability of the topic, I cannot see the current article being kept. WP:HEY applies if someone does manage to rewrite it properly._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. Perhaps those interested in retaining the list might be interested in doing the sort of rewrite that's been suggested. Intothatdarkness 23:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another relevant secondary source: The Image of the Military Officer in Films Concerning the Vietnam War - unfortunately I cannot access it, but this other secondary source Images of War and War of Images on p. 134/136 tells us that, and lists/briefly discusses some types.

Oh, and to all "there is nothing worth retaining opinions", please be aware that some improvements have been made since the deletion nomination. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Daranios has made a good start. The classical archetype of Alazon 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 deletion is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment List of stock characters in science fiction and List of female stock characters were merged into List of stock characters. 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. Dream Focus 13:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly a case of OR and and SYNTH. The assessment by Ravenswing in both the nom and in response to suggested additional "sources" are spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Onel5969: Weird, did you actually read into "The Military Novel", p. 34-36, as an example? What do you think of it as a source discussing the topic? And how is Ravenswing's response to These are the 12 characters in every war movie "spot on" in light of the new evidence brought up about about that site afterwards? Daranios (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 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. Dream Focus 19:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything salvageable to List of stock characters per WP:BEFORE. 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. Dronebogus (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2021 (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.