Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female stock characters

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 (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that article needs improving, not deleting, on the basis of which the nominator withdrew. WilliamH (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of female stock characters

Unencyclopedic, POV and OR by default article. M0RD00R (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The article is current in transition from an earlier competing format which seemed mostly based upon OR to a more objective format in which the list just links to other articles. Since the linked articles explain the stock character type such as Bond girl or Bunny boiler, little further detail is needed in this list, which is primarily for navigation. But sources are being added to reinforce any debatable entries and the sourced entries form a model for what the list might become. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden - this article is apparently being improved and de-POVed. It provides (or at least, when completed, will provide) a good method of navigating the other articles on the topic. I don't see a reason to delete it at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator probably doesn't understand that this isn't an article, its a list. As an aid to navigational tool, it does its job perfectly, and the debatable entries seem to be getting referenced within the list itself, which is above and beyond the requirements in my book. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This list serves as a decent navigational hub, and is apparently undergoing a rework to be much better than the previous version. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not inherently OR or POV, because stock charactes are discussed (almost ad nauseum) in scholarly works, which also means is notable. Article is in the middle of being improved by multiple editors, which means we should step back, don't jostle their elbows while they do the work, and there's anything like sourcing and verification problems when they're done, THEN revisit it. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, let's revisit article in one month's time, I'm ready to withdraw my nomination. M0RD00R (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2008 (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.