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 no consensus. It's clear that this list not only needs work but clearer criteria for inclusion. But no consensus to delete it exists at this time. Chick Bowen 02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock characters in science fiction[edit]

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

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

Delete With respect, this is hardly a definitive list of stock characters, and very much open to debate. The entire list is based on one source, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and Wikipedia would do much better to have an article on this than just quoting entries like "computer", "lotus-eaters", "Hitler" and "God" without any explaination. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The main purpose of the list, as currently constituted, is to assist navigation. All the entries in the list are links to other articles. This is one of several lists of stock characters and so forms part of a hierarchy. If the nominator wishes to write some other article about the Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction he is free to do so and this article is no impediment. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main concern is that this article doesn't show what it is supposed to: there are multiple interpretations of what stock characters exist in science fiction, and this list just replicates (or plagiarise) one written text, and presents it as a definitive list. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The list does not represent itself as definitive. The current format just dates from the last time-wasting AFD in which I did some cleanup by reference to a good source. Perhaps I shall add again to it but AFD is not cleanup. If you think the article can and should be improved, you should either engage in talk upon its talk page or, better yet, improve it yourself. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If one more source could be provided that says a list or compilation of stock characters is an interesting topic, this list would be okay in my book. Otherwise it is just a sub-index entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The purpose of a list is to assist navigation. The list itself does not have to be notable--its just a device to help find articles. If the subjects of the articles are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, then a list is justified. If it were an articles about Lists of stock characters in science fiction, instead of a list of the stock characters, the objection would be valid. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move over the first paragraph from each article and add one character, add a fictional mad scientist for example. A list still needs context, other wise a category does it better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's rare that an article gets even worse after it was nominated (see [1]), but this pathetic excuse for an article accomplishes that feat. The first time around, the objections were that this, although an interesting read, was original research. I'm afraid that an indiscriminate list doesn't improve with 32 mentions of the "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction". Send this one out the airlock. Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a legitimate subject for an article. The solution for poorly-written articles is improvement, not deletion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Reliance on the single source is troublesome. there are some discussions of 'stock' characters in fiction and science fiction but so many of the sources and references are dispersed across different genres and discussing different things. Might come back later w/ some more discussion. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added two more sources. This was done by ordinary editing and you do not explain how deletion would assist further improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will not mind if some of the former text is put back in. Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really need much narrative to explain entries like Mad scientist, do we? Especially when they are linked to separate articles. But you're free to edit as you please in the usual way. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't offered an affirmative defense of the claim that ordinary editing will produce a list that is more than a recitation of a single source or a pastiche of unconnected references to "stock characters" in fundamentally unrelated situations. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has multiple sources and adding more is easy to do. The topic seems quite clear and so your other point seems irrelevant. All I'm seeing here are variations on WP:RUBBISH and WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are easily dismissed by reference to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this appears to be just a random list with no rhyme or reason, and a whole lot of duplication. Are there Alien invaders, Little green men, Bug-eyed monsters, or Martians that aren't Aliens? Or just Bug-eyed monsters that aren't Monsters? Is Superman not a Superhero? When is a Mad Scientist not a Scientist? Are there Computers or Robots that aren't Machines? And Hero and Villain are stock characters in all fiction—so what makes them different in an SF context? Hell, how on earth can you even consider having a list like this that doesn't include "teenage boy" and "benevolent wise old man"? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally understand your distaste for the rawness and seeming OR of this list, but those problems can be fixed by indenting, no? Here is a scholarly source that thoughtfully analyses the evolution of the mad scientist character. There are many reliable sources out there on the subject of stock/standard/stereotyped characters in sf, but so far only one that attempts to list them all. I think that notability requirements are a bit relaxed for lists. We wouldn't be debating this list if looked like List of stock characters in military fiction, which is so obviously true (and hilarious) that its total lack of sourcing can be overlooked. Abductive (reasoning) 05:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: If you think indentation solves all problems, do you put Bug-eyed monster under Monster, or under Alien? And does Superman go under Superhero (which is under Hero, yes?) or under Alien? And do you group Cyborg, Robot, and Android together, or do you have to classify them as whether or not they're Machines? And so on, and so on. At that point, the list is based on people's opinions, which makes for a lousy page. (and what do you do when someone puts Child under Monster?) Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think indentation solves all the problems, I think that this list is going to be kept. I also think that it will take somebody some effort to fix it up, but that that person will stumble on the list in the fullness of time. In the meantime, I am sure that people will be able to use this list even if it is a bit raw. For example, suppose some kid wanted to assign all the characters of Futurama to a stereotype for a school report. The list would be more than sufficient to get them started. Abductive (reasoning) 09:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional thought: along with my other reason above, also note that most of the links are poor. Sex object is a redirect to Sexual objectification. Shapeshifter is a redirect to Shapeshifting (disambiguation). Lotus eaters redirects to Lotophagi. Alien to Extraterrestrials in fiction, and so on. When the link isn't even related to the topic, I don't think that it's a useful list. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the main source material, despite being an encyclopedia, is to my reading of it very POV and unencyclopedic, though very entertaining and thought provoking. this list could easily be recreated in a few minutes, so its loss until properly written is not a problem. Um, List of stock characters in military fiction is not a good example, note the tags. it absolutely needs sourcing, and if not sourced should be deleted. WP articles cannot be simultaneously hilarious and encyclopedic. but the biggest problem is: no rational criteria for inclusion. "stock character" is a real term of course, but would Severian from Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun novels be considered a stock "torturer turned messiah"? unlikely, but where is the measureable dividing line between "stock" and "original" or "unconventional" characters? criteria would be inherently POV, just as it would be for a "list of unusual sf characters" or "list of stereotypical sf characters" or "list of flamboyantly gay sf characters" etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WP articles cannot be simultaneously hilarious and encyclopedic." Disagree. Abductive (reasoning) 08:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of sources can such a list be reasonably be expected to have? Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not require an exact definition because we are not here to conduct original research. What we do is summarise the work of reliable third-parties concerning stock characters in science fiction. They may well have different working definitions but this is of little moment because, if we properly cite and explain our sources, the reader will be informed rather than being deceived. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What I was saying is that the sources are as good as it is going to get; one (I wish it was two) tertiary attempts at a list, plus quite a lot of secondary sources on individual types. This list is not going to be deleted because there is secondary and tertiary sourcing available, and AfDs end up keeping lists of minor characters from individual works for which there is nothing but primary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 10:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Assist in navigation, which is what a Wikipedia list is suppose to do, and there is a book published listing these, which would count as a reference for those obsessed with the suggested notability guidelines, and most importantly, its just WP:common sense, a policy that outweighs everything else on Wikipedia. These are common stock characters found in science fiction. Aliens, robots, mad scientists, monsters, whatever. If you have a problem with a specific entry, discuss it on the talk page. Perhaps we could list the most popular science fiction works that use each feature, although it would probably be a rather long list. Dream Focus 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your use of the word "obsessed" seems as if it is meant to imply that editors who, in good faith, try to build a better encyclopedia by the use of proper sourcing are doing so for fetishistic reasons understood only by themselves. Given that I, an editor who tends towards deletionism, am arguing on behalf of this article and the article is likely to be kept, this seeming dig also seems rather pointless. Abductive (reasoning) 19:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY Is a good policy to read. You don't follow the suggested guidelines mindlessly, they not absolute law you must obey. And the Wikipedia was far better off before the mass deletion of articles do to this ridiculous obsession with sources, instead of just using your own reasoning ability to determine if something was notable or not. Dream Focus 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is true; I don't follow the guidelines mindlessly. Thank you for noticing. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2009 (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.