Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic character (fiction)

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. There appears to be consensus here that a redirect is not appropriate from this article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic character (fiction)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has essentially been unreferenced since its inception, and seems to be something of a duplicate of stock character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stock character as the much more comprehensive and referenced article this duplicates. Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stock character per Jclemens. CoconutOctopus talk 18:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without WP:SIGCOV. Looks to be a neologism and an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's existed for 19 1/2 years and redirects are cheap. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the text of the article seems like it is most closely describing a stock character, I cannot find any actual reliable sources that actually uses the term "generic character" to describe either what is being described in this article nor being used as a synonym to a stock character. That makes this appear to be a non-notable neologism, which would not really be appropriate to use as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I was going to close this as a Redirect but there is an objection so I'm relisting the discussion to see if there is more or less support for that option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I get lots of hits for this, all of which use it in the obvious sense of talking about various works of fiction (or bodies of such work) as a whole, not about single characters. And the redirect is plainly wrong: a stock character has a particular but standardized nature, while being generic implies (ironically) a character without character, more or less like the background extras in a crowd scene in film. I think this is just made up. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. A redirect to stock character would not be appropriate - that is not what the article as currently written describes, and I can find no evidence that "generic character" is used to mean stock character Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2024 (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.