Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contender (stock character)

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. Article is original research. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contender (stock character)

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

WP:OR, WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of usage in literature or character analysis, not like underdog. This is like saying a competitor is a stock character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I recall, this was created to resolve incoming links made to the word "contender" in the context of describing fictional characters. If deleted, it should be redirected to an article that has coverage of the character type, perhaps to Underdog (term). bd2412 T 18:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not seeing anything in Google Scholar sufficient to say that this is a notable literary academic term, but I think the idea probably should be redirected somewhere appropriate per BD2412 and WP:ATD-R. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it pretty much duplicates Underdog (term) while not being a useful redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has 142 incoming links. Some are template-generated, but others are not. Something should be done, at least, to insure that those links point somewhere useful for the reader. bd2412 T 00:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removing the page from the template should fix the majority, the rest should be changed to point to Underdog (term) instead (although I would be of a mind to change it to Underdog (trope) to avoid it being a dicdef)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Underdog (term) could be renamed to Underdog (stock character) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that as a trope it extends beyond single stock characters, entire teams can also be "underdogs" e.g. The Mighty Ducks. "Stock character" implies it is always one person._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete Whoever authored this article may find their approach welcome at TV tropes, but under this project's guidelines, this is blatant WP:Original research that hasn't even so much as been masked by a single reference. This is certainly an archetype we can all recognize, but we don't create articles based solely on our own observations of narrative trends. Again, there's a voluminous and very interesting project devoted to exactly this purpose, but Wikipedia is not it. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:03, 19 December 2017 (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.